Just saw this poll at CNN and I am used to very conservative responses on that site, but strangely most people voted in favor of torture! What do you think about it?
Just saw this poll at CNN and I am used to very conservative responses on that site, but strangely most people voted in favor of torture! What do you think about it?
Torture a man and you can get him to confess to anything
Txwingchun brings some point up in ways,
as it has been used the "bad way",thus to get out a confession of something that never was there.
Sort of a complex question to answer in a simple manner.
why torture when there are plenty of drugs to get a person to
spill the beans.
except it's kinda fun, but besides that:D
Some 'thoughts' I may have had: -
People will always seek to justify it to themselves or to those who's opinion they care about...
I never heard of anyone enjoying it.
It's against the Geneva Convention and the International/Euro (?) Human Rights Act.
Amnesty International aren't impressed with anyone's excuse for using it.
Some things you just aren't meant to have. Torturing people into giving up their secrets is an example of going counter to the biblical commandment "thou shalt not steal".
It's ok for Uncle Sam to torture Arabs but not vice versa?!?!
That goes for truth-drugs, aswell.
-David
I think it should be used for siblings and sex partners only....
that's what I meant....
Yes. Under the right circumstances torture has a place in interogation tactics. It's a tool like truth drugs or other less invasive psychological methods. From what I understand that level of interogation seems to be only used when under a serious time restraint that could result in the achievement of a serious threat.
Interogation has come a long way since the chinese water torture.
Torture and drugs are both unreliable. Understand TX, that we are not really talking about confession by an individual, but instead looking at gaining some wider-reaching information. Currently, the US military uses interrogation methods that are designed to provide motivation for the subject to tell the truth, and to use clever methods which make it difficult to avoid being caught in a lie.
The bottom line is that the most reliable method is to make the subject want to share accurate information. This is the theory behind torture - that it is more desirable to talk than to be tortured. To this degree, torture works. You can nearly always get a subject to talk using torture, but they may or may not tell you the truth. What's more, once you go down that road, you cannot backtrack and become a trusted party.
A modern interrogation, when performed by a professional, is a bit of a cross between a job interview and a counseling session (in terms of tone). The key here is "when performed by a professional." Problems arise when someone other than a professional interrogator performs the interrogation. They tend to not be familiar with the applicable rules, laws, and conventions, and are often too close to the situation to be calm and objective.
While Geneva and Hague conventions apply which forbid the use of torture, these conventions are extremely difficult to follow to the letter. I personally do not see a moral imperative which would preclude the use of torture against a POW in a conflict which would not preclude killing that same person prior to his/her POW status.
However, it is simply rarely useful to do so.
Torture is a primitive way of obtaining information. And besides there is nothing you can get a person to confess with torture, which cant be obtained with other means.
Modern days interogators can get any subjects to speak, its only a matter of time. A saying goes that under perfect conditions any man will talk within 24-48 hours using modern interogation methods. Of cause most of the time, you dont have perfect conditions.
Interesting that you bring this term up.
If you look at what they do, it is torture.
Not physical, but mental.
Torture is torture no matter how its done.
Things will be infinitely better all around when the sun goes supernova.
For the average man: no.
For a man that is a known international terrorist who has already killed thousands of people and was planning to kill thousands more, then yes. It will save many innocent lives. Pass me the knife.
I don't think that torture ever is justified.
It is an archaeic method when they had NO other way of gathering information to ascertain the Truth.
I also agree that Torture will produce the results that the torturers want and thus those are by definition invalid.
Cheers.
With that type of thinking wouldn't it also be better just to nuke any Country that the US has disputes with??Quote:
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
For the average man: no.
For a man that is a known international terrorist who has already killed thousands of people and was planning to kill thousands more, then yes. It will save many innocent lives. Pass me the knife.
i.e.: Iraq, Iran. N. Korea, France, Germany, etc.
Cheers.
For that al qaeda ******* we caught, you better believe that torture is justified! The information he can offer us will possibly prevent the mass murder of even more innocent civilians. It is information that we NEED to get, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
On a personal note, I feel that if it was up to me I would have him castrated with a rusty fork, stick needles in his eyes, slowly cut his fingers off one by one, and then throw him in a prison cell with a big ****sexual inmate who will sodomize him repeatedly for the rest of his natural life. I hope the special forces guys who caught him gave him a thorough a$$ kicking before they turned him in. That man is a piece of human trash!
Problem her is the phrase "I would have him castrated ...".Quote:
Originally posted by DragonzRage
On a personal note, I feel that if it was up to me I would have him castrated with a rusty fork, stick needles in his eyes, slowly cut his fingers off one by one, and then throw him in a prison cell with a big ****sexual inmate who will sodomize him repeatedly for the rest of his natural life.
Don't make statements like that unless you are willing to do it yourself.
Talk is cheap, many People talk but would never do as they say it should happen.
Getting other People to do those things only shows cowardice.
This normally happens when people are emotionally involved and apply double standards.
Why "double standards" because if someone else decided to do it to theirs it would be cruel and wrong.
Example:
Americans prisoners during Vietnam, WW II in Japanese camps, etc.
Just one of the reason why the geneva convention, etc were put into place after WW II.
[Edit]
Nevermind that you will sink to the same level as other countries that are condemned by the US, UN and other countries.
Just something to ponder.
Torture LITE anyone?
personally I'll be waiting for Diet Torturetm
hitting the states next summer...:rolleyes:
Hmm. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. I happen to have been a professional Russian interrogator in the US Army toward the end of the Cold War. Interrogation subjects are treated quite well. You have seen too many movies.Quote:
Originally posted by BeiTangLang
Interesting that you bring this term up.
If you look at what they do, it is torture.
Not physical, but mental.
Torture is torture no matter how its done.
What you are referring to is called "coercion", and it is expressly forbidden in the Geneva conventions and military doctrine. Truth be told, the best thing that can happen to a foreign soldier is to be taken by the US military as a POW. This is by design. We want enemy soldiers to know how easy and pleasant it is to surrender to us.
-B
"Problem her is the phrase "I would have him castrated ...".
Don't make statements like that unless you are willing to do it yourself."
-How do you know that I'm not? Put the knife in my hand and I'll be more than happy to.
"Talk is cheap, many People talk but would never do as they say it should happen. Getting other People to do those things only shows cowardice."
-How do you know that I'm among those people? Perhaps you're not the type of person to back up your views with action. You should speak for yourself and not make presumptions about others. Talk may be cheap, but your talk is just as cheap as mine. The fact that you're speaking from an opposite point of view makes no difference. Perhaps if you lost a loved one in the Trade Towers you'd feel differently.
"Why "double standards" because if someone else decided to do it to theirs it would be cruel and wrong. Example:
Americans prisoners during Vietnam, WW II in Japanese camps, etc."
-If Viet Cong captured and tortured the American officer responsible for the My Lai massacre or another similar atrocity, I would understand why they did it and I would not condemn them for it. As for the Japanese, let's not forget that they were the ones who attacked us. They also raped and slaughtered indiscriminately through Asia on scales of savagery that made the Nazis seem tame. View some photos of what happened in Nanking before you start empathizing with WWII Japanese military practices.
"Nevermind that you will sink to the same level as other countries that are condemned by the US, UN and other countries."
-I never condemned any country. I'm not George Bush. Did I say that I felt attacking Iraq is justified? White America was founded upon the systematic genocide of the Native American people and the enslavement and disenfranchisement of other minorities. Great Britain has robbed and subjugated many people and nations in the past. The U.S. and Great Britain are in no moral position to condemn other countries.
You can't judge an entire nation, but you can judge the individual. I simply feel that any individual who willingly plans or executes the mass slaughter of innocent people deserves to be put through the a similar amount of pain and agony that he so senselessly caused. I don't care what country or religion he is from. Perhaps we have a philosophical difference on that point. But whatever...you have the right to feel the way you do as i have the right to feel the way I do.
America has been torturing the rest of the planet for quite a while now, simply by being there. Can we get the UN to do something about them now, seeing as they're breaking things like the Geneva Convention by continually torturing the rest of the world?
Dragonzrage.
Not a problem.
Glad that you are so sure that you can hurt and torture an individual in cold blood.
I don't know if I could do it, and hope I will never have to find out.
;)
I never sympathise with the japanese military or the nazis.
:D
Just used them as an example.
Cheers.
That's actually an interesting point.
How many of you think you could actually torture someone for information?
Don't jump to answer, just on an intellectual level. Stop and think about it, imagine physically mutilating someone, causing them extreme pain. Could you really do it?
I would by no means enjoy doing something like that, and I guess (to be honest) I can't say for sure that if placed in the position I'd have the stomach to follow through. But in the case of this madman, I definitely feel that it is justified. I guess that in answer to your question, I would HOPE that I'd have the strength to follow through if it was required of me. I am not experienced in interrogation or systematic torture so I can't say for sure that I have the ability to do such things without hesitation. I suppose that it'd be easier to deal with if I had some training first.
You should never sacrafice your morals to get ahead. A small scale example of this could be many different things, i tenm dto think of movies, liek dark blue, training day, although less that movie. 24 (tv show) had some good stuff on that aawhile back
First off, I think we need to define our terms with regard to torture. The media that I've seen cover this story so far has included things like sleep and sensory deprivation under the umbrella of torture. I think this is incorrect. Sleep deprivation is relatively harmless in the long run and has been a staple of police interrogation for years.
However, it's an increasingly well-documented fact that confessions coerced in such ways are not necessarily accurate. As was stated earlier, if you put someone under sufficient stress, they will cop to anything.
That said, this is a somewhat unique case in which the subject's guilt is not in question, but rather what is sought is information. The trouble is, the subject can hold out for a while and then the interrogators may believe anything he says. Truthfully, without corroboration, I can't see how anything they get from this guy is at all reliable. He is most likely familiar with our tactics, and is probably smart enough to play to his interrogators.
Nope. Will that save innocent lives? Negative. Will coercing information from an admitted terrorist who has publicaly acknowledged his role in the slaughter of over 3,000 innocent, non-military personel? Yes. It's not like he is a "supsected" terrorist. He is one of the most well-known and well-organized terrorists in the world. EVERY country's intelligence community does not dispute this fact one bit.Quote:
With that type of thinking wouldn't it also be better just to nuke any Country that the US has disputes with??
Do you think the moral high-ground is worth it if another 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack that could have been stopped with information this man holds? Will you tell those innocent victim's families, that their son, mother, father, wife, etc had to die because interrogating a known murdered and terrorist would be "wrong"? Who knows? It may be your parents, children, or spouse that dies because of it. It might even be you.
Which is why the US is circumventing this policy on technicalities. I guess lawyers are good for something. ;)Quote:
Truth be told, the best thing that can happen to a foreign soldier is to be taken by the US military as a POW. This is by design. We want enemy soldiers to know how easy and pleasant it is to surrender to us.
Haha! The US is the UN. They fund it. If the UN needs to use force, who spearheads the campaign? The UN has shown there absolute incompatency when it comes to force. They are a great peace-keeping force and good for handling the aftermath of conflict, but history shows they are useless in the conflict itself. BTW, please provide a specific example of the US torturing the "rest of the world". Thanks.Quote:
Can we get the UN to do something about them now, seeing as they're breaking things like the Geneva Convention by continually torturing the rest of the world?
Dwid,
Interrogators can learn almost as much from a lie as they can from the truth. If Mr Casey was actively involved in interrogation or the intelligence stemming from interrogation, he could verify this.Quote:
However, it's an increasingly well-documented fact that confessions coerced in such ways are not necessarily accurate.
i agree with dwid
sleep deprivation is not a severe form of torture
on english tv at the moment there is a program where normal civilians were shipped off to borneo to see if they could endure a shortened easier version of the S.A.S training they made them march for a couple of days on the jungle and stand watch all night and then did a mock capture interrogation, this involved depriving them of sleep and making them stand in stress positions for prolonged lengths of time.
they were free to leave at any time but only one of them dropped out.
in an ideal world torture wouldnt be necessary and pain imposed on ano5ther human being is never right.
but the world we live in is far from ideal and getting worse by the day.
if it saves lives in the long run then i support it.
I think we need a specific definition of torture, as some here seem to feel that sleep deprivation is torture.
I would disagree with my government beating/cutting info out of someone, as it would "bring you down to their level".
Need I say any more?Quote:
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Haha! The US is the UN. They fund it. If the UN needs to use force, who spearheads the campaign? The UN has shown there absolute incompatency when it comes to force. They are a great peace-keeping force and good for handling the aftermath of conflict, but history shows they are useless in the conflict itself. BTW, please provide a specific example of the US torturing the "rest of the world". Thanks.
Let me tell you a story of how my attitudes towards things like this changed a few years ago. When I was in my teens and early 20's I was convinced that I could kill a person if I had to - whether it was self defence, revenge, or in the service of my country.
One day I attended a family get together. The usual feast was planned and as is fairly usual in my family crabs were on the menu in large amounts. Mum had bought 3 large, live crabs and asked me to kill them and cut them up for cooking.
Being the hard man that I was, I said "No problems", grabbed the knife and a crab and prepared to do the deed. As I was about to plunge the knife in, the crab started scrabbling and struggling and I hesitated and could almost sense its fear. I couldn't do it!
So me, the hard man who could take a human life if I had to didn't have the heart to take the life of a crab. I realised then that I had been deluding myself about being able to kill a person. I eventually killed the crab anyway, because it had to be done but it was a very hard thing for me to do.
So, don't be so sure that you could torture or kill someone you perceive to be an enemy. Once you look them in the eye and are faced with doing the deed, I am sure you will sotp and think twice as well.
Excellent post, Joe!
Joe.
Great Post.
Coming from a Family of Hunters I can kill an animal, preferably in the quickest and most painless method.
All the Animals we killed and caught were for the sole purpose of being eaten.
This goes as far as raising hatch rabbits and killing them after a few months of play, after that we skinned them, etc.
A good hunter will always try to minimise the pain and suffering of it's prey, and deliberaely hurting an animal or letting it suffer goes against our beliefs.
Plus, we try to set us on as equal footing as possible when hunting.
I have seen too many animals that were maimed or similar due to bad hunting skills.
:( :(
I've only ever "hunted" fish. I think that if I had to catch and kill and prepare my own meat that I'd eat a lot less meat. I might become a fishivore pretty dayum quickly! :)
Yeah, I know I am a wuss. I figured that a lot of the posters, particularly the US posters, have probably done some hunting in their lives so are cool with killing animals, but my point wasn't about the killing as such, but more what went through my mind.
I did try to make it as quick as possible, and the way Mum had shown me to kill crabs is supposed to be the quickest way anyway. Still made me realise that it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be. And killing a human would be several orders of magnitude harder.
It taught me to appreciate and respect life in any form.Quote:
Originally posted by Serpent
I've only ever "hunted" fish. I think that if I had to catch and kill and prepare my own meat that I'd eat a lot less meat. I might become a fishivore pretty dayum quickly! :)
;) ;)
Agreed, not many people these days could do it, same way they could not club a baby seal over the head to get their fur-coat.
:D :D
I´m not so confident with crabs but I think fish is low on frontal cortex which means they are,theoretically,unable to sense pain.
It has been seen that sleep deprivation is highly harmful in long run (OK,I do not know how long torture goes and how to define) an example of that is a poor dog that eventually passes away without sleep.
Just to play the Devil's Advocate " another scenario". Say one of your children or wife has been kidnapped.[list=1][/list=1] You caught the SOB one day laterYou can't trust the police for competent help.You've been informed by the SOB that she/they cannot survive an indefinite amount of time without help from someone elseHe's also not saying anything else[list=a][/list=a] Balls in your court now what do you do??
Uncle.
Playing the "what if" game with unlikely scenarios never won an argument.
;)
Actually "What if" games for the most part are a waste of time, as each real happening will be different and thus you cannot say "I would do X, Y or X."
Cheers.