Report: 'indisputable' evidence of US torture

[Bugfatty300]

The U.S. was idolized in Poland as a paradise full of good guys, half naked women, freedom, milk, and honey. Perception matters too.

Sorry we didn't live up to expectations, but yeah we were always jerks. Comparatively, I don't think we've gotten any worse or any better since the wall came down.

 

[AlpsStranger]

But some pragmatic person will pipe up that when push comes to shove you need that information and if torturing someone is the only way to get it then so be it. The argument against that is that the information you get that way is useless.

And what if they manage to prove that torture works? Will you suddenly think the US engaging in official torture is acceptable?

Arguing that it doesn't work opens you up to someone developing a better torture technique that does work, and then you've just lost the argument. There's no universal law keeping torture from working.

 

[Borachio]

There is. It's that constraining someone to give you information by violent means gives you false information.

The better technique is to get people to give you good information. I don't see how you could do this and yet still use torture. It's kind of a contradiction.

But to refute your argument, all I would need to do is point out a situation where it matters very much to get the information. Which is presumably why people use torture in the first place. Other than the personal satisfaction of the torturer, that is.

 

[Tarquelne]

There is. It's that constraining someone to give you information by violent means gives you false information.

Quite. What you need for torture to "work" is an infallible lie detector: You need to identify the guilty with some certainty AND know when they're telling you the truth or not. And if you're already *that* darn good, what do you need with torture?

Knowing both those things is rare enough with individuals. To make torture *policy* would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.

F'r Cr'sts sake! Human intel. is spotty enough when the source *likes* you. Torture isn't just ineffective, it's counterproductive: It ties up manpower and generates more false leads than good ones.

Ok... so... yes, if you had unlimited manpower and/or unlimited time torture could work: You just torture everybody and check out everything they say. OTOH, with with unlimited manpower and/or time you almost certainly don't need torture at all.

And then there's still the PR effects to consider. And what it's likely doing to the effectiveness and morale of torturing organization. "Counterproductive" is an understatement.

Torture is for those who place punishment above justice, activity ahead of effectiveness, and feeling strong over being safe.

The better technique is to get people to give you good information. I don't see how you could do this and yet still use torture. It's kind of a contradiction.

Yup. The FBI has pretty much demonstrated this.

There are some unkind mind-games you can play with prisoners that can be effective. I wouldn't call them torture - they don't involve coercion, physical abuse (or drugs, deprivation, etc.) and play out in a few days or less. But I'd say technically they are torture, since I would characterize them as "mistreatment". The infamous slippery slope is also a concern.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And what if they manage to prove that torture works? Will you suddenly think the US engaging in official torture is acceptable?

Arguing that it doesn't work opens you up to someone developing a better torture technique that does work, and then you've just lost the argument. There's no universal law keeping torture from working.

Well, it DOESN'T work, its designed to get false confessions. Even if it did work, it would still be immoral.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Even if it did work, it would still be immoral.

This is pretty much my position written short and plain.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is pretty much my position written short and plain.

Yeah, I get a little disappointed when anyone I otherwise respect argues that we should waterboard people. Its just cruel and unusual. I'm all for execution after a fair trial, but torture is too much.

I also think that those who create the blowback deserve some of the blame...

 

[Borachio]

Yeah, I get a little disappointed when anyone I otherwise respect argues that we should waterboard people. Its just cruel and unusual. I'm all for execution after a fair trial, but torture is too much.

I also think that those who create the blowback deserve some of the blame...

And I feel obligated to point out that even if capital punishment was effective in deterring others, in punishing, or in compensating victims in some way (and it isn't effective for any of these), it would still be immoral.

 

[peter grimes]

Sadly, no, they're above the law, just like the current POTUS.

That's exactly my point.

This HAS to change.

Its just cruel and unusual. I'm all for execution after a fair trial, but torture is too much.

that's really strange.

...that you find threatening someone with death to the extent that they their body is reacting consistently with the process of dying more of a moral error than telling someone they're going to die after an indiscriminate amount of time andthen actually going through with the procedure.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's exactly my point.

This HAS to change.

Absolutely. Both Bush and Obama should be Nuremberg Trialed and sentenced for murder.

Sadly, its not ever going to happen, because they ARE above the law these days. Gerald Ford made that one clear enough. Almost everyone who seriously challenges this concept is someone you'd pick Obama over anyway...

that's really strange.

...that you find threatening someone with death to the extent that they their body is reacting consistently with the process of dying more of a moral error than telling someone they're going to die after an indiscriminate amount of time, then actually going through with the procedure.

Ignoring supernatural/religious elements that shouldn't be part of a legal discussion, death isn't necessarily cruel. Its just death. You're gone. You don't get to live anymore. Torture, by contrast, puts someone through excruciating pain and suffering. I believe that that's cruel.

 

[Berzerker]

thugs want to murder people and I'm supposed to care if they're water boarded for information to save the lives of their victims?

does that mean we shouldn't be killing them either?

 

[Puck Nutty]

thugs want to murder people and I'm supposed to care if they're water boarded for information to save the lives of their victims?

does that mean we shouldn't be killing them either?

Problem is, how do you know if you're waterboarding the right guy? Torturing innocent people over mistaken identity is kind of a big deal.

Also, many experts (both military and intelligence) agree that torture is, at best, an unreliable means of acquiring information.

This isn't so much about hurting a terrorists' feelings but rather about whether you're wasting your time and getting your hands very dirty in the process.

 

[Berzerker]

if they're innocent then they aint thugs trying to murder people

so what if they aint innocent?

immoral to water board them?

but its fine if we kill them?

we're killing plenty of innocent people now, does that mean we shouldn't be killing terrorists at all?

just seems strange to hear water boarding a terrorist is immoral but dropping a bomb on them is ok

 

[GhostWriter16]

I never said dropping a bomb was OK either, although that's more because of the collateral damage, and in most cases the lack of trial, than it is about killing a terrorist.

 

[Puck Nutty]

if they're innocent then they aint thugs trying to murder people

so what if they aint innocent?

immoral to water board them?

but its fine if we kill them?

we're killing plenty of innocent people now, does that mean we shouldn't be killing terrorists at all?

just seems strange to hear water boarding a terrorist is immoral but dropping a bomb on them is ok

Well, the topic wasn't the morality of dropping bombs, it was about torture. But yes, if torture is immoral than certainly dropping bombs on people for no discernable gain is as well.

Additionally, it's kind of hard to justify going to war with someone because they committed a high crime (suicide bombing, in this case) while you yourself are committing war crimes during the persecution of that war. You've abdicated the high ground which motivates your allies to distance themselves from you so as not to be stained by your actions.

Finally, there is a pretty strong argument to be made against using massive military action against terror groups. Torture, invasions and all that go along will most likely just aid in creating the next generation of suicide bombers chomping at the bit to take a shot at you, while accomplishing very little.

So yeah, after all that you're no closer to destroying your enemies, your allies are keeping you at arm's length and you've tied an anchor to your nation's economy. All for a fleeting moment of revenge.

 

[sophie]

Excellent! All that remains now is to prove Jack Bauer partook in torture. Good luck proving that though.

 

[bhsup]

You guys realize this was a private study by a private group and no more legally binding than me standing up and saying, "Waterboarding is not torture." You realize that, right?

 

[Cutlass]

You guys realize this was a private study by a private group and no more legally binding than me standing up and saying, "Waterboarding is not torture." You realize that, right?

This isn't about "legally binding". This is about what the evidence says happened.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Excellent! All that remains now is to prove Jack Bauer partook in torture. Good luck proving that though.

Well, as he isn't real I think he gets a pass

You guys realize this was a private study by a private group and no more legally binding than me standing up and saying, "Waterboarding is not torture." You realize that, right?

"Waterboarding is not torture" is a BS statement to make. Just admit that you support torture. Even in my more "conservative" days, when I actually believed that the BS threat was more of a problem than our actual, inescapable enemies in Capitol Hill, I still admitted that it was torture. I was for it, but I didn't deny that it is in fact torture.

This isn't about "legally binding". This is about what the evidence says happened.

Yeah, laws haven't meant crap in this country since 9/11. But Bush is absolutely guilty of torture. So is Obama. Both should be appropriately charged. Since Bush will never hold any position of power again, and Obama is STILL engaging in crimes against humanity, I focus more on Obama.

 

[peter grimes]

...death isn't necessarily cruel. Its just death. You're gone. You don't get to live anymore. Torture, by contrast, puts someone through excruciating pain and suffering. I believe that that's cruel.

You conveniently glossed over the part of my argument that pointed out the torture aspect of it.

"you find threatening someone with death to the extent that they their body is reacting consistently with the process of dying more of a moral error than telling someone they're going to die after an indiscriminate amount of time andthen actually going through with the procedure."

In simpler words, I think it's equivalent to torture - a cruel and unusual punishment - to tell someone that they are condemned to death at a point in the future to be determined. That's the torture part. Forcing them to live each day, knowing that they will die on a predetermined arbitrary day.