I'm not really a newspaper reader, but I was bored at work and couldn't help myself. And I came across a real treat yesterday. Jesus H Christ, there are some really screwed up people in this world. I can barely stomach the idea of living in the same country with these people. I couldn't keep the paper itself, so I'm forced to recite this garbage from memory. Here goes:
"Newsflash: All the detainees who have been tortured are still alive, while the terrorists execute their hostages"
(Note the condescending tone and not-so-subtle shift in the terms being used) What a human rights accomplishment. I'm sorry, but when you have to set the bar at ISIS level to make what you're doing seem good in comparison, you've already lost the argument.
But it goes on:
"Real torture is seeing your loved ones die on 9/11"
(It goes into graphic detail but I'll mercifully spare you guys all the gory details) Not the most original argument in the world, but whatever. So let me get this straight: torture is fine, but only if you have a grievance to support it. Lovely. And what a great way to honor the victims of the attacks than to commit torture in their names. And I'm sure that exploiting someone else's grief (the editorial writer had no personal connection to the attack) to push your political agenda is also something that sits well with people.
I could rant all day about this, but the whole newspaper page is this flurry of torture debates apparently with a roughly 50/50 split, which is a tad surprising even for a red state. And maybe I don't know my compatriots as well as I thought, but damn, is this really a legitimate issue? Like, when you guys watch world war 2 movies where Nazis are torturing allied prisoners do you think to yourself, "Hey, that looks like a good idea. Yeah, let's do that!"
What do you guys think? Am I being too "soft"? Do we need to Jack Bauer the bad guys? Is torture an issue whose pros more than its cons?
They long for the good old days of the inquisition..
Someone on my facebook feed shared a picture of someone jumping out of one of the WTC's with a caption something like "this is why I don't care that we torture terrorists". Now this is someone who has previously said that Obama has fired any military leader who refuses to sign off on shooting American citizens, faked school shooting to steal our guns and manufactured unrest in Ferguson as a front to declare marshal law and cancel elections. But she has no concerns about the government coercing confessions?
I've seen plenty of other Repubs who seem to have the same opinion: "We can't let the government have too much power, unless we call it 'law and order', then the government needs all the power--unless it involves our guns"
Quote from: Poison Tree on December 14, 2014, 04:15:46 PM
Someone on my facebook feed shared a picture of someone jumping out of one of the WTC's with a caption something like "this is why I don't care that we torture terrorists".
Me too. Amazing how stupid many of my high school friends turned out to be.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 14, 2014, 04:27:20 PM
Me too. Amazing how stupid many of my high school friends turned out to be.
You don't want my classmates to join society at all (*Idiots*)
:oak:
QuoteWhat do you guys think? Am I being too "soft"? Do we need to Jack Bauer the bad guys? Is torture an issue whose pros more than its cons?
I can understand the anger and hatred that cause people to want to torture. I can think of a few people I'd personally like to punch in the face. But you have to take a moment and think it through. We can't just cave in to a base instinct because it feels good at the time.
The thing about torture is that every time they have looked back, the results show they get no good Intel. So it doesn't even work. There is also the fact that you loose all moral authority. You can't claim to be better than "them" if you are a torturer.
Quote from: Berati on December 14, 2014, 07:23:22 PM
The thing about torture is that every time they have looked back, the results show they get no good Intel.
I don't believe this to be true. There are reasons that people believe this, and I think the reason people believe this, is that the people who know better want people to believe this.
edit: the reason torture is still used over thousands of years is that it works. Otherwise…..really?
Quote from: aitm on December 14, 2014, 07:40:54 PM
I don't believe this to be true. There are reasons that people believe this, and I think the reason people believe this, is that the people who know better want people to believe this.
I can only go by reports like this recent one that say it doesn't work.
I'd like to see any other studies or reports that show effectiveness. Do you have any source for this?
Quote from: Berati on December 14, 2014, 07:43:37 PM
I can only go by reports like this recent one that say it doesn't work.
I'd like to see any other studies or reports that show effectiveness. Do you have any source for this?
You will never find a report that shows the effectiveness of torture. Think about that.
Quote from: aitm on December 14, 2014, 07:40:54 PM
I don't believe this to be true. There are reasons that people believe this, and I think the reason people believe this, is that the people who know better want people to believe this.
edit: the reason torture is still used over thousands of years is that it works. Otherwise…..really?
I highly disagree with the edit. We also bound women's feet for thousands of years, cut off part's of men's penises for thousands of years, pray to a god to bring us good luck for thousands of years, pollute our environment knowing full well it will kill us one day for hundreds of years... yet none of those actually work. You are assuming that people who would support torture are thinking rationally; harming your fellow human being means you either have to see them as something different (i.e. not thinking rationally) or to be caught up in rage (i.e. not thinking rationally).
Quote from: Shiranu on December 14, 2014, 08:12:46 PM
I highly disagree with the edit. We also bound women's feet for thousands of years, cut off part's of men's penises for thousands of years, pray to a god to bring us good luck for thousands of years, pollute our environment knowing full well it will kill us one day for hundreds of years... yet none of those actually work. You are assuming that people who would support torture are thinking rationally; harming your fellow human being means you either have to see them as something different (i.e. not thinking rationally) or to be caught up in rage (i.e. not thinking rationally).
I think we can safely say that using torture to get people to admit to imaginary shit is pretty much useless since they have no real answer to said imaginary shit. Torturing someone over shit that they actually know? I think that works better than those that know want us to know, because yeah,,,, it doesn't work so well that we waste time on it…really?
Quoteit doesn't work so well that we waste time on it…really?
Again... yes. There are some sick people out there. There are people who will torture people, who will hammer screws into someone's gut or beat them to death with a tire iron, just because they get their kicks out of it.
Now add ontop of that patriotism. Add ontop of that the feeling that this person killed your comrade. Add ontop of the thought that, "If it saves just ONE life, it is worth it!"... yeah, really, we would torture people even if it doesn't give us rational results because the type of person that would torture another man is not thinking rationally.
And this last one is the one that almost every commander I have seen who ordered torturing has said... if it saves just one life it was worth it. So what if 99.9% of the time it doesn't work, if it worked that .1 time it was worth it. That is not a rational thought, and that is straight from the mouth of the people doing the torturing, not the statistic makers.
Quote from: aitm on December 14, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
You will never find a report that shows the effectiveness of torture. Think about that.
How can you claim that torture works and then claim that any report that it does would not be released. Surely you can see why this comes across as a closed loop argument and not a rational one.
Anyway, there are plenty of very powerful people who would be willing to back torture so I can't say I give much credence to this hypothesis. If it worked, there would be evidence and those responsible for the torture would be shoving it in everyone else's faces.
Looking around, all I can find are statements from former torturers who say it doesn't work, and reports like the one just released that says no useful information was found out through torture.
I'm willing to reevaluate if any evidence is brought forth. That is how the scientific method works after all.
I would just like to add that if it works or doesn't really matter anyways if we want to pretend we are the "good" guys.
Found the original editorial in all its conservative nastiness:
QuoteRegarding the Dec. 10 news article “ Report: Torture by CIA wasn’t worth its crueltyâ€: Sen. Dianne Feinstein lectured us about our use of torture. I would like to lecture her for a moment.
The terrorists subjected to the “enhanced interrogations†are all still alive! We did not behead them or stone them or hang them. This is considerably more than they would do if roles were reversed.
Does Feinstein know what real torture is? Torture is seeing someone we don’t know jumping to his death from the World Trade Center rather than burn. It is knowing a family member died when Islamic terrorists flew planes into a building or died on the battlefield fighting these thugs and knowing they will never, ever come home.
So forgive me. I will not shed one single tear for those who might have been interrogated roughly; their behavior and the lives of those lost outweigh their temporary discomfort.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/11/4396213/tom-imler-no-sympathy-for-terrorists.html?sp=/99/108/165/#storylink=cpy
Quote from: aitm on December 14, 2014, 07:40:54 PM
I don't believe this to be true. There are reasons that people believe this, and I think the reason people believe this, is that the people who know better want people to believe this.
edit: the reason torture is still used over thousands of years is that it works. Otherwise…..really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_torture_for_interrogation
Quote from: Shiranu on December 15, 2014, 12:10:22 AM
I would just like to add that if it works or doesn't really matter anyways if we want to pretend we are the "good" guys.
Also, if we care even the slightest about making/keeping allies.
Torture is bad, m'kay?
You shouldn't do torture.
Again, it is a governments desire to make other people believe that torture does not work. People who do not have information will give whatever is needed to stop the torture. But if it was that ineffective, if would never even enter the scenario... hence, we still have our government using it despite the "overwhelming" evidence it does not? Yeah, right.
Quotehence, we still have our government using it despite the "overwhelming" evidence it does not?
...you realize you could say that about a good 65% of government actions, ya?
From what I have read, the claim that torture does not work is heavily weighted with mostly anecdotal testimony. I haven't seen actual hard data. This doesn't surprise me. Given that torture is considered vile and reprehensible in Western society, I would expect lots of anecdotal information about torture's ineffectiveness. It's a given psychological dynamic in the Western psyche. I'm skeptical about opinion based on anecdote.
For me, the argument against torture is that it is reprehensible, not that it is ineffective. In my mind, I'm quite sure it is reprehensible. But I'm lacking enough information to be convinced that it doesn't work. However, the moral argument is adequate enough, at least for me.
Torture doesn't work, because a person tortured will say whatever he can to stop being tortured, true or not.
Quote from: Solitary on December 15, 2014, 09:52:16 AM
Torture doesn't work, because a person tortured will say whatever he can to stop being tortured, true or not.
This is especially true when the person being tortured does not know the answer. If they DO know the answer it is somewhat believed that it does work, again, otherwise, no one would still be doing it.
Quote from: Solitary on December 15, 2014, 09:52:16 AM
Torture doesn't work, because a person tortured will say whatever he can to stop being tortured, true or not.
But that claim admits the person being tortured will supply both true and false information. But a perception of the claim is that the information is always false. Well at least that it is all worthless, which is not what the claim actually states.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 07:25:10 AM
Again, it is a governments desire to make other people believe that torture does not work.
You have very divided government and their desires don't align. Government is not monolithic. There are plenty on either side of this issue and many are making pro torture statements.
QuoteBut if it was that ineffective, if would never even enter the scenario... hence, we still have our government using it despite the "overwhelming" evidence it does not? Yeah, right.
You're assuming people are rational. I've spent more than one post showing why "rational choice theory" in economics is flawed. People still use this all the time to push laissez faire capitalism in spite of all the evidence that shows the failure of laissez faire capitalism.
Basically, people often believe what feels good instead of what’s true and persist in their beliefs and behavior in spite of evidence. The desire to not have govt telling you what to do feels as good as revenge often does. That people still continue either behavior in spite of evidence is not a surprise.
Quote from: SGOS on December 15, 2014, 08:10:16 AM
For me, the argument against torture is that it is reprehensible, not that it is ineffective. In my mind, I'm quite sure it is reprehensible. But I'm lacking enough information to be convinced that it doesn't work. However, the moral argument is adequate enough, at least for me.
It isn’t 100% black and white to me. It depends on what you mean by torture and what any supposed evidence would be. Of course, there are some lines I would never cross but here is just one example:
For instance if there was conclusive evidence that sleep deprivation led to information that saved thousands of lives by thwarting the release of poison gas, I would have to rethink my position based on the moral implications alone.
However, the evidence simply doesn’t point to this at all. (see links below)
While I don’t doubt that some information has been developed through the use of torture, when it is studied it appears pretty clear that that bad outweighs the good by a wide margin.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/torture-it-didnt-work-then-it-doesnt-work-now-9923288.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/torture-doesnt-work-government-report-shows-psychological-suffering-doesnt-lead-truthtelling-273840
Everyone against torture will cheer for it if their loved ones are in the hands of the enemy, this is the nature of us. This is why governments and agencies proclaim that torture does not work, so that others will believe it and not use it against us. But rest assured when the chips are down and the clock is ticking every one here will pull a finger nail or slice a testicle if your child is about to be be-headed. And no one has the right to degrade them for it.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 01:50:29 PM
Everyone against torture will cheer for it if their loved ones are in the hands of the enemy, this is the nature of us. This is why governments and agencies proclaim that torture does not work, so that others will believe it and not use it against us. But rest assured when the chips are down and the clock is ticking every one here will pull a finger nail or slice a testicle if your child is about to be be-headed. And no one has the right to degrade them for it.
Nice to know you are an expert as to the inner working of our brains. Tell me, o prophet, what career would I be happiest and most successful in?
Seriously, though, before we can determine if torture works we first have to determine the goal of the torturers.
For example, during the Korean war North Korea was able to coerce American airmen into admitting to chemical and biological attacks. Did that torture work? If the goal was to provide intelligence that would enhance the defense of North Korea, then talk of phantom WMD attacks did not accomplish that goal. If, however, the goal was to score PR points and embarrass the US then the torture was successful.
Or let us take a different example. There is a history of police coercing confessions--even using water boarding to get confessions. If we accept that such practices will get both true and false confessions, does torture in that situation work? It depends on the goal of the police force: If the police are actually interested in protecting the public then they should be unwilling to accept false confessions because such a confession will not only not protect the public by catching an actual criminal but it will in fact harm the public by unjustly incarcerating someone--harming that individual and his/her family. If the police's goal is to remove criminals from the street then they may be more willing to accept some false confessions in exchange for quick true confessions. If the police are only interested in closing cases as quickly as possible than any confession--true or false--accomplishes that goal and the use of torture is effective for them in exactly the degree to which the suspect confesses (or dies during torture).
If the goal of CIA torture was to provide actionable intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks then any false information will not accomplish that goal by both being worthless in itself and potentially exposing weaknesses elsewhere if acted upon--like in The Guns of Navarone. There are still situations where it can be useful, such as confirming information you've gotten from conventional sources or vice versa. But we should also realize that torture burns the bridge to conventional interrogation. you can always ratchet things up, not down. Like in hostage situations: If you start negotiations you can always storm the place latter but if you storm the place first--successfully or not--you can't very well negotiate after. If conventional interrogation creates less intelligence but much less bad intelligence then the actionable intelligence gathered may actually be greater than from a large volume of intelligence with a large degree of bad intelligence gathered by torture.
There is also the risk that torture will cause a [permanent] break/mental collapse rendering the suspect completely useless as a source of intelligence--but still perfectly useful as a PR prop.
Quote from: Poison Tree on December 15, 2014, 02:36:26 PM
Nice to know you are an expert as to the inner working of our brains.
You are right, there are indeed people who could care less if their children are beheaded. I will attempt to speak for those who would do anything to prevent their kids from such actions.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 01:50:29 PM
Everyone against torture will cheer for it if their loved ones are in the hands of the enemy, this is the nature of us. This is why governments and agencies proclaim that torture does not work, so that others will believe it and not use it against us. But rest assured when the chips are down and the clock is ticking every one here will pull a finger nail or slice a testicle if your child is about to be be-headed. And no one has the right to degrade them for it.
No atheist in a foxhole eh?
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 09:56:05 AM
This is especially true when the person being tortured does not know the answer. If they DO know the answer it is somewhat believed that it does work, again, otherwise, no one would still be doing it.
You just parroted the apologetics of religion, you realize?
There's a reason you don't find reports that torture works: it doesn't. For fuck's sake, man, there are more government reports that
homeopathy works than there are reports that torture works.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 15, 2014, 05:11:12 PM
there are more government reports that homeopathy works than there are reports that torture works.
thats is, will be, and shall always be their findings… that is the idea. Thank you.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 01:50:29 PM
Everyone against torture will cheer for it if their loved ones are in the hands of the enemy, this is the nature of us. This is why governments and agencies proclaim that torture does not work, so that others will believe it and not use it against us. But rest assured when the chips are down and the clock is ticking every one here will pull a finger nail or slice a testicle if your child is about to be be-headed. And no one has the right to degrade them for it.
If torture doesn't work, it's a waste of time and effort that could have been spent
actually saving your child instead of doing something that only
feels like you're saving your child. This is just like idiots who pray to God to save their child instead of taking them to the doctor.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 06:43:10 PM
thats is, will be, and shall always be their findings… that is the idea. Thank you.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 15, 2014, 07:54:21 PM
If torture doesn't work,
Indeed, if it never worked, I dare say it would never be used.
QuoteWhat the fuck is that supposed to mean?
as I have put forth nearly five times now, it is in the "governments" interest to proclaim loudly that torture does not work so that the enemy thinks it does not work so they do not torture because they think it doesn't work because the government says it does not work…….sheesh.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 03:31:16 PM
You are right, there are indeed people who could care less if their children are beheaded. I will attempt to speak for those who would do anything to prevent their kids from such actions.
Or there could be people who honestly don't think that torture is an efficient method of gathering actionable intelligence and would prefer the use of methods that are more efficient at gathering actionable intelligence.
Quote from: Poison Tree on December 15, 2014, 09:05:20 PM
Or there could be people who honestly don't think that torture is an efficient method
yes, there could be.
My brother, who spoke French because of his mission in France, was an interrogator in Vietnam. Because Vietnam was a French colony for many years, most Vietnamese spoke it. He was trained in interrogation techniques, which he explained to me were very effective. I gather the CIA interrogators were untrained in both interrogation and torture, and made it up as they went.
This is incredibly sad. We have become the monster we have spoken and fought against for generations. The only way to restore national dignity is to own up to it and punish the guilty. I know they won't be, but seeing Cheney thrown into a jail cell would be a wonderful moment for me.
Quote from: stromboli on December 15, 2014, 09:32:31 PM
My brother, who spoke French because of his mission in France, was an interrogator in Vietnam. Because Vietnam was a French colony for many years, most Vietnamese spoke it. He was trained in interrogation techniques, which he explained to me were very effective. I gather the CIA interrogators were untrained in both interrogation and torture, and made it up as they went.
This is incredibly sad. We have become the monster we have spoken and fought against for generations. The only way to restore national dignity is to own up to it and punish the guilty. I know they won't be, but seeing Cheney thrown into a jail cell would be a wonderful moment for me.
Oh stop it strom, the government says that torture doesn't work, that's why they don't do it. Sheesh.
I feel like we are being trolled...
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 08:04:56 PM
Indeed, if it never worked, I dare say it would never be used.
Yes, just like homeopathy would never be used if it didn't work. Oh, wait. People
do use homeophathy, even though it doesn't work.
What I really don't get about this whole thing is how anyone could have a system of ethics where murder is wrong, rape is wrong, abusing an animal is wrong, but torturing a human being is a-ok. It just boggles my mind. You'd think avowed Christians with crucifixes dangling around their necks would be solidly against the practice. But apparently when one party decides that it's all for it, it drags half the populace with it (or was it the other way around?)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2014, 01:18:43 PM
What I really don't get about this whole thing is how anyone could have a system of ethics where murder is wrong, rape is wrong, abusing an animal is wrong, but torturing a human being is a-ok. It just boggles my mind. You'd think avowed Christians with crucifixes dangling around their necks would be solidly against the practice. But apparently when one party decides that it's all for it, it drags half the populace with it (or was it the other way around?)
yeah, recent survey has like 55% agreeing with it. I think this is because we as a nation, have come face to face with an enemy that has absolutely no problems with killing or torturing other humans. Their devotion is so at odds with our "self-proclaimed" devotion( that truth be known is nothing more than skin deep) we cannot fathom faith so deep that people are not only willing but eager to die for it. Many of us are too young to even be aware of the horrors of the Japanese in WW 2, or of what certain Germans were willing to do. But even they would be hard pressed to go execute and behead little children. Because of that, I think many realize that there is no current method of negotiating with this type of enemy that works, and therefore, torture is on the table.
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2014, 02:40:50 PMBecause of that, I think many realize that there is no current method of negotiating with this type of enemy that works, and therefore, torture is on the table.
Right. Our enemy is monstrous and because of that, our tactics should be a bit rougher and our collective morality should be adjusted accordingly. Looks like fool-proof logic to me. Maybe if we were in conflict with more compassionate people, we could forgoe say, the Abu Ghraib stuff. But we're not, so we should just do whatever we feel like doing.
Relevant article (http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html?imw=Y)
Notably - "Throughout that period, Soufan says he never felt the need for harsh interrogation methods. He argues that techniques like waterboarding don't work. 'When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them,' he says. 'That means the information you're getting is useless.' But his main objection to the techniques, Soufan says, is moral. To use violence against detainees, he says, 'is [al-Qaeda's] way, not the American way.'"
Also note where the techniques came from (at least in this scenario) - "Soufan says that view was shared by the CIA officials who worked with him on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and others. But then the harsh methods were introduced, he says, by CIA contractors and Soufan protested. He was backed by his bosses at the FBI and pulled out of the interrogations."
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2014, 03:26:19 PM
Right. Our enemy is monstrous and because of that, our tactics should be a bit rougher and our collective morality should be adjusted accordingly. Looks like fool-proof logic to me. Maybe if we were in conflict with more compassionate people, we could forgoe say, the Abu Ghraib stuff. But we're not, so we should just do whatever we feel like doing.
I disagree with your conclusion but I understand you rational.
Quote from: aitm on December 14, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
You will never find a report that shows the effectiveness of torture. Think about that.
But you're sure it works. Uh, that's a complete load of shit dude. Psychologists actually do study effective means of getting cooperation. They actually do have an idea of how the human mind works. Give us something better than this shit.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 17, 2014, 10:00:05 PM
But you're sure it works. Uh, that's a complete load of shit dude. Psychologists actually do study effective means of getting cooperation. They actually do have an idea of how the human mind works. Give us something better than this shit.
Hey, you guys are welcome to your conclusions. No government is going to tell people that torture works. It would be a horrendous idea, I thought that would be pretty obvious.
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2014, 02:40:50 PM
yeah, recent survey has like 55% agreeing with it. I think this is because we as a nation, have come face to face with an enemy that has absolutely no problems with killing or torturing other humans. Their devotion is so at odds with our "self-proclaimed" devotion( that truth be known is nothing more than skin deep) we cannot fathom faith so deep that people are not only willing but eager to die for it. Many of us are too young to even be aware of the horrors of the Japanese in WW 2, or of what certain Germans were willing to do. But even they would be hard pressed to go execute and behead little children. Because of that, I think many realize that there is no current method of negotiating with this type of enemy that works, and therefore, torture is on the table.
I think this is correct and it's why people who would normally oppose torture now put it back on the table.
However, those are emotional reasons and it says nothing about the effectiveness of the practice. As has been pointed out several times now, people are not rational and will continue doing something that doesn't work in spite of evidence as long as it satisfies an emotional need. This is why people still think praying for a sick relative will help with their recovery.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 08:06:13 AM
Hey, you guys are welcome to your conclusions. No government is going to tell people that torture works. It would be a horrendous idea, I thought that would be pretty obvious.
And yet the US admitted that it wanted to use torture... sorry, "enhanced interrogation," on suspected terrorists, even though though it was saying that it doesn't work. How do you think that makes us look?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 18, 2014, 11:52:03 AM
How do you think that makes us look?
Honestly, I don't think the rest of the world really gives a shit. Seriously. We think a lot more about what the world thinks about us than what the world really thinks about us. The countries that are far worse than we are, in human "rights violations" are the ones making noise as if anyone really believes anything they say. When we are dealing with people or ideologies that the rest of the world is aghast at, I think they prefer we do the dirty work rather than them, but they will do it as well if they have too.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 12:19:49 PMHonestly, I don't think the rest of the world really gives a shit.
And you'd be wrong yet again. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30411466) The world does care, as it should. Hell, some of these countries hosted the tortures described in the report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/). Of course they care.
And yes, this should also be important to Americans. In the course of this conflict, we chose to be more like our enemies than our allies. We chose to use interrogation methods that we've denounced for generations. This is a black mark that will haunt us for decades. From here on out, when other people look at the U.S., they'll see torturers and torturer apologists. And they won't be wrong. Not entirely. And if our situation wasn't already rocky enough with our allies, this will definitely give some second (or third) thoughts about their relationship with us. And obviously, those unfriendly if not hostile to us now have even less reason to have anything to do with us.
This is going to go down in history right next to the Japanese internment camps and the McCarthy era as the biggest moral blunder of our generation.
And you applauded it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2014, 12:45:45 PM
And you'd be wrong yet again
Oh my, Russia, China, Iran...LOL. Yeah right. A half dozen newspapers...yeah, you really are spot on about what the "world" thinks. Go out into the bush and ask the Aboriginies, or the Congo or the Mongolian highlands.....yeah a hand full of people wrote a few newspaper articles.....oooh I am impressed.
QuoteAnd you applauded it.
No Nancy, I didn't applaud it. Get off your horse your cunt is on the horn and your brain is leaking. Nowhere did I applaud it. I simply do not buy into the whole "it doesn't work because people who don't want people to be tortured say it doesn't work". See? If you read you can understand the point. And no, the "world" doesn't give a shit, the "world" didn't give a shit that JFK was assassinated either. Don't confuse a dozen newspaper articles or a few prime ministers speaking for the "world". The world of 7 plus billion people don't give a fuck that some people tortured people who are out blowing up innocent people.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 02:13:01 PM
The world of 7 plus billion people don't give a fuck that some people tortured people who are out blowing up innocent people.
Do you really want to live in a country where the authorities get in the habit of torturing people?
Quote from: Jason78 on December 18, 2014, 02:47:20 PM
Do you really want to live in a country where the authorities get in the habit of torturing people?
No, do you? However, to be honest, which I have been, I don't consider this "in the habit" and I think that "authorities" is using a pretty big paint brush.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 02:13:01 PMOh my, Russia, China, Iran...LOL. Yeah right. A half dozen newspapers...yeah, you really are spot on about what the "world" thinks. Go out into the bush and ask the Aboriginies, or the Congo or the Mongolian highlands.....yeah a hand full of people wrote a few newspaper articles.....oooh I am impressed.
Aborigines?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/10p704gIAGRN7i/giphy.gif)
It's more than just Russia, China, and Iran. Believe it or not that one link wasn't actually the entirety of the international reaction, but a sampling of it. Before you said that no one carried about illicit US torture, you could have bothered to check that this was the case. FFS, man, lrn2google.
QuoteNowhere did I applaud it.
Yet you defend the practice, even going so far as to consistently make excuses for it. If you are against the practice, you have a very strange way of showing it.
Torturhing someone ends up making itself ineffective, a person will admit to anything to make the pain stop
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
Yet you defend the practice
Wrong again skippy. ffs man lrn to
comprehendI have commented that I don't think the "practice" of torture is as "useless" as many believe simply because people who don't want people to be tortured say that torture does not work. I have also said that it is not in the best interest of people to go around saying torture DOES work. Hello?
I also have commented that, indeed torturing people who do not know the answer will indeed result in getting the wrong information. Duh!
I have also commented that most people would indeed resort to the use if they thought it would save a life of a member of their family. Not the member of someone else's family but their family, and I think anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
And still, the world does not give a shit despite you providing whatever dozen or so articles…you can. Hell over half the people of this country don't give a shit and you think the other 7 billion or so really give a fuck? Yeah, USA! USA! USA!
We have been manipulating governments and economies and commerce and ecologies of most the worlds countries for the last 50 years and suddenly you think the world see us as the bastion of morality?
The usual response from people who say that torture doesn't work is to say that people being tortured are inclined to tell the torturer what the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear and not necessarily the truth. It seems to me that aitm is probably right to a certain degree... probably there are indeed a certain percentage of people that will give correct information if you torture them. But, to come up with a net effectiveness score, you need to factor in that other methods might get the same information or even more information. And you also need to factor in the amount of wrong information you get because the victim is giving the answer they think is wanted. Thus, while torture may not have zero effectiveness, you might sometimes get some genuine good information, when taken in full context, it is, at least as far as I know, not effective, or at least not the most effective.
After all, aitm says it is in government interest to not admit that torture works. But, seems that lots of our government is doing exactly that, saying it works. If it really works and if they are wanting us to believe it, seems like they should be able to point to something tangible. They might claim that they can't do that, for national security reasons. But, I would tend to think that if they did get something really valuable 10 years ago, the risk of releasing that information now is pretty minimal I would think.
Did torture get key information in the finding of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden or any other high profile target? As far as I know, the answer is no.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 08:06:13 AM
Hey, you guys are welcome to your conclusions. No government is going to tell people that torture works. It would be a horrendous idea, I thought that would be pretty obvious.
Except they, um, are doing exactly that, saying it works. And, government officials are not necessarily the people I would trust to actually know what the fuck they are talking about. I'd sooner trust psychologists. Just like I'd sooner trust scientists than government officials on matters of climate change. In other words, I'm asking you for actual fucking evidence from an actual fucking expert. Do you have it? No, seems you don't. So, until you do, your claims will be treated just like Creationist claims, bullshit.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 08:02:21 PM
Wrong again skippy. ffs man lrn to comprehend
I comprehend that you said that torture is effective (with the brilliant logic that it wouldn't be practiced otherwise). I comprehend that you said that we'd all do torture ourselves in your silly ticking bomb scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario#Implausibility) (newsflash: the real world doesn't work like it does on TV), which in addition to straining credulity, actually completely underestimates the conviction of the many people who have vehemently disagreed with you on this. I comprehend that you cautioned against "degrading" people who have committed torture while being oddly silent about the people who have actually been degraded through torture. I comprehend you putting forth the argument that "people" see torture as valid because we're fighting bad people.
None of this is very convincing, it reeks of bullshit, and there are logical problems that one could do joint naval exercises through, and comes about as close to justifying torture as one could possibly get without saying it outright. So yes, I was (and still am) under the impression that you are pro-torture.
QuoteAnd still, the world does not give a shit despite you providing whatever dozen or so articles…you can.
A statement that you spouted off before actually checking if that was the case. And surprise surprise, it's not. There has been a pretty substantial international outrage over this. So...yeah. Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
QuoteWe have been manipulating governments and economies and commerce and ecologies of most the worlds countries for the last 50 years
So let's not make the situation worse, m'kay?
Quoteand suddenly you think the world see us as the bastion of morality?
No one said that. No one thinks that. A flubbed attempt at a strawman argument if I ever saw one.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 18, 2014, 08:44:18 PMDid torture get key information in the finding of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden or any other high profile target? As far as I know, the answer is no.
No, but we did have intel on both of them through other means and thanks to that, were able to finally track down the both of them. Good thing too, because Saddam was a despot with a bunch of human rights violations. He had a bunch of facilities where his cronies imprisoned and tort--
Oh wait.
In time, welcome to the real world.
Quote from: aitm on December 18, 2014, 06:07:27 PM
No, do you? However, to be honest, which I have been, I don't consider this "in the habit" and I think that "authorities" is using a pretty big paint brush.
I don't either. Which is why it can not be tolerated. We can not allow the people that govern us to make a human being an unperson and then proceed to torture them.
This isn't a few incidents of rogue elements torturing a suspect without their superiors knowledge. It's gone past being a habit. The torture that's occurring in the USA is officially sanctioned at the highest levels. If they can make it legal to do that to one person, then they can make it legal to do it to you too.