Is torture necessary?

[Avatar Roku]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

Torture does not work, which is why SAS, MI6 and CIA don't use it. The only people who think it works are those who watch 24.

As for them not enjoying causing pain...well, that's the only semi rational reason I can think of for them to be doing it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I don't see torture as a reliable way of gathering information. Any idiot can lie to save their own skin, so there is no way to be sure that any info gathered is truthfull, accurate or valid.

Exactly. If someone was peeling my skin up my fingers, I would lie my ass off.

Torture also cheapens any ideas that it is used to protect. No-one can honestly say they are fighting for freedom, human rights etc if they are actively abusing someone in this way. It's just hypocritical to the point of nonsense.

This is also true, but I don't care about human rights.
Hell, if someone broke into my house and I managed to overpower them, I'd probably torture them to death as punishment.

It gets results I suppose.

Yeah, bad ones.
False information is worse than no information.

I love this post. Let's summarize:
Torture doesn't work and is an abuse of human rights. Max will use torture as he sees fit but believes in being honest about what's happening. That works for me.

 

[dnnydllr]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

Torture does not work, which is why SAS, MI6 and CIA don't use it. The only people who think it works are those who watch 24.

As for them not enjoying causing pain...well, that's the only semi rational reason I can think of for them to be doing it.

I'm done arguing with you, as you don't seem to understand that they would not use a technique that doesn't work.

 

[KamachoMcSagget]

noooooooo

 

[CrazyMofo]

Sorry last post was a bit off topic. So about this torturing business...

Torture is only effective if information gathered can be verified and the subject knows that the torture will continue if they lie. For example a perp kidnaps someone and stashes them somewhere and is caught by police. They want to know where the victim is held. The perp knows that if he lies that location will be searched (and nothing found of course) and the pain will continue until he tells the truth.

On the other hand if a terrorist is tortured about where the next terrorist attack will take place they can say anything to stop the pain. If the attack does not take place any of a multitude of factors could have come into play to explain why it did not take place (ie the suspect was not necessarily lying).

In the first example there is no way that if the victim is not at the location the perp was telling the truth (short of the victim escaping - but if that happened they would most likely go to the police first thing). Torture could be used to extract correct information here because the perp knows that if they lie it will stop temporarily but will then continue. In the second example there is no way to say for certain that the perp lied. Further torture may just reveal another false date or place, but also a correct one which does not occur.

What I am trying to say is that is certain circumstances torture can give correct information, but only in some circumstances.

 

[Barry93]

Absolutely, since the only argument of the opposition is that were not respecting the moral rights of people who are trying to kill us.

 

[CrazyMofo]

Yea unfortunately the American military always uses that excuse... Im still trying to figure out how we went from a war on terrorism against Bin Laden to invading Iraq and taking out Saddam...(If there was a valid reason please let me know, im not sure )

OIL

 

[kaziard]

Necessary?!? Is it necessary to drink my own urine? No but i like to anyway cus its sterile and i like the taste.

OT, torture is next to useless, it gets your hands dirty and produces no reliable info, get data the old fashined way, send in 007.

(cyber cookie for whoever names the movie reference)

 

[D_987]

Torture gains bad information, the individual will say whatever the torturers wants them to say in order to end the pain - so even if they were originally telling the truth they may just lie.

 

[ygetoff]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

There have been many cases recorded where suspects being tortured admitted guilt, even though there was evidence that pointed clearly to another person. People will say anything to stop the pain.

 

[ygetoff]

IT DOES NOT WORK

The SAS don't think it works, MI6 don't think it works, hell- even the CIA don't think it works. Only the US Military 'Intelligence' thinks it works, and when was the last time they got something right*.


*I jest. They've obviously gotten things right before. We just never hear about it. But still, I'd trust MI6 over them.

I'd definitely trust the SAS. Captain Price is a badass.

 

[Flap Jack452]

or dropped them in a pool while they're tied up on a board, they're going to gibber anything at you.

Are you even aware as to what waterboarding is? I wouldn't even call it torture, it could be labeled as "mild discomfort" at the most.

Waterboarding is simply tying someone down on a board at a slight elevation and placing a wet towel/rag over their face. This gives the effect of drowning, while it is literally impossible to do so. It does not make it impossible to breathe, just difficult.

Now, if some terrorist has killed thousands of innocent people, do i really give a fuck about him being uncomfortable for a few minutes? Absolutely Not. For another example of "torture" done by the Americans to terrorists: One terrorist was believed to be afraid of bugs, so they told him he would be placed inside of a room with a bug that could sting him, but not kill him. When he got into the room he was with a caterpillar. Seriously?? This is torture?

Now that we have been forced to release our so called "torture" methods to the public the enemy has no reason at all to fear us. They know if they get caught that nothing, especially now, will happen to them. With this knowledge they have nothing stopping them from committing acts of terrorism.

Absolutely bollocks

 

[dnnydllr]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

There have been many cases recorded where suspects being tortured admitted guilt, even though there was evidence that pointed clearly to another person. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Refer me to one of these many stories, and mind you I'm speaking of military cases.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

or dropped them in a pool while they're tied up on a board, they're going to gibber anything at you.

Are you even aware as to what waterboarding is? I wouldn't even call it torture, it could be labeled as "mild discomfort" at the most.

Waterboarding is simply tying someone down on a board at a slight elevation and placing a wet towel/rag over their face. This gives the effect of drowning, while it is literally impossible to do so. It does not make it impossible to breathe, just difficult.

Yes, I am aware of what water boarding is. I was just referencing the film W, in which they depicted it by dropping them into a pool while tied up and their faces were impaired. From our friend wiki:

"In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14]"

Put more succinctly, the average CIA operative, who is trained to withstand torture, can last about 14 seconds when water boarded before they crack. Naval officers use it to break soldiers who believe they can withstand torture because the technique is not mental, it is inducing a panic reflex. Everybody caves eventually under it.

It has been around since the Spanish Inquisition and used in the US for decades though illegally, so if the terrorists were going to train people to resist torture (which is impossible), it would definitely be on the list. There is nothing new about the method except that, like every other means of torture, you just have some crying sack of crap in front of you who will say anything to get you to stop.

And finally, considering the average terrorist is willing to kill themselves with a bomb, what else are you going to threaten them with?

 

[Skeleon]

Torture is wrong, it takes away a person's dignity and his most basic Human Rights.
Justifying it with some higher purpose makes you a bigot for using your oh-so-great morals on just a select few. The ends don't justify the means.
Also, how can you be sure you do it to the right person? Guantanamo? Murat Kurnaz?

 

[ygetoff]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

There have been many cases recorded where suspects being tortured admitted guilt, even though there was evidence that pointed clearly to another person. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Refer me to one of these many stories, and mind you I'm speaking of military cases.

Military cases? Why don't you name a military case where torture has been proven to work? Find a case where the subject admitted some intelligence, and the intelligence was corroborated by another source.

 

[Flap Jack452]

Put more succinctly, the average CIA operative, who is trained to withstand torture, can last about 14 seconds when water boarded before they crack. Naval officers use it to break soldiers who believe they can withstand torture because the technique is not mental, it is inducing a panic reflex. Everybody caves eventually under it.

The average CIA officer must be weak, there are reports that two prisoners were waterboarded over 300 times.

The point I was trying to make was that it seems as if most people believe water boarding is obscenely cruel, that is the worst form of torture we could possibly do. While that (my opinion) is untrue. And why give rights and protect people who want nothing more than every American to be killed?

 

[dnnydllr]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

There have been many cases recorded where suspects being tortured admitted guilt, even though there was evidence that pointed clearly to another person. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Refer me to one of these many stories, and mind you I'm speaking of military cases.

Military cases? Why don't you name a military case where torture has been proven to work? Find a case where the subject admitted some intelligence, and the intelligence was corroborated by another source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
Thank you, now refer me to one of these cases that you were speaking of...

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Put more succinctly, the average CIA operative, who is trained to withstand torture, can last about 14 seconds when water boarded before they crack. Naval officers use it to break soldiers who believe they can withstand torture because the technique is not mental, it is inducing a panic reflex. Everybody caves eventually under it.

The average CIA officer must be weak, there are reports that two prisoners were waterboarded over 300 times.

The point I was trying to make was that it seems as if most people believe water boarding is obscenely cruel, that is the worst form of torture we could possibly do. While that (my opinion) is untrue. And why give rights and protect people who want nothing more than every American to be killed?

Hell, once they're convicted, they can lock them in a dark hole for eternity or put a bullet in their head, it's no problem to me.

It's just...right to a fair trial, right to keep my guns, right to say whatever I want, right to keep the government from telling me what to do. That's what I pledge to and that's what I support about this country. When the Feds start Torturing people, for me personally, it just makes me wonder whose gonna be next.

 

[ygetoff]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

That's seriously fucked up, but closer to the truth. I dislike torture completely, but at least you see that it can't be used for info. Problem is, neither is it a deterrent. I mean, now all our enemies can just point at us and say "Oh look, we told you they're evil, they torture people. Join us in fighting them!"

admit you are a terrorist... admit you are a witch and a heretic

People will agree to and admit anything under the right torture, which doesnt mean what they are saying is actually the truth.

I would of hoped humanity had progressed beyond medieval barbarity by the 21st century

The only people they'd be torturing would be people they knew were terrorists, who they believed had information that could save many lives. I think in that situation, you certainly have to do whatever you can to get it out of them. Better them suffer then for thousands of innocent people to lose their lives.

Problem is, any info they give you under torture is entirely unreliable. Torture just straight-up doesn't work.

If tortured didn't work, they wouldn't use it. Again the military's not stupid, and most of them don't enjoy the inflicting pain on others. They do get answers, and most of them are good ones. Yes, some people might be able to tell a lie under these circumstances, but few could.

There have been many cases recorded where suspects being tortured admitted guilt, even though there was evidence that pointed clearly to another person. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Refer me to one of these many stories, and mind you I'm speaking of military cases.

Military cases? Why don't you name a military case where torture has been proven to work? Find a case where the subject admitted some intelligence, and the intelligence was corroborated by another source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
Thank you, now refer me to one of these cases that you were speaking of...

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
This is the person who issued the memo, saying that the torture was not needed Effectiveness is moot when the technique is not needed at all.

As for my cases, I would refer you to The Innocence Project, a group focused on acquitting people wrongly convicted, through DNA testing. Some of these people were put in jail because of false confessions.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/