Wh is torture ok?

Wh is torture ok? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

egern -> Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 4:39:24 AM)
‘Indisputable’ Proof Of Use Of Torture Under Bush, Report Finds "No Evidence That Torture Produces Any Significant Information Irvine went on to stress that there is no persuasive evidence that torture produces any valuable information. On the contrary, the evidence seemed to show that much of the gathered information was neither useful nor reliable. This, of course, is the one of the main points of contention in the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.” The report outlines torture under Bush, but it also makes recommendations to Obama. The authors call for the declassification of information regarding detainee policy, and for the United States to comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and ensure that the transfers of detainees to Afghan prisons do not result in their torture. Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/indisputable-proof-of-use-of-torture-under-bush-report-finds.html#ixzz2RHkbCawW Why is torture ok? I get the impression that "ok, it may not be nice, but it is necessary and it is ok if we, the Good Guys, do it." But is it? I am thinking 1) we all think we are the good guys - terrorists included 2) the risk of becoming what you fight is enormous 3) it doesn't always work anyway.

DomKen -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 6:17:18 AM)
It is never ok. It is morally wrong and it doesn't work.

Owner59 -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 9:02:07 AM)
Torture, was used by bush to extract false confessions/info... http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/06/18/world-exclusive-new-revelations-about-the-torture-of-ibn-al-shaykh-al-libi/ In a world exclusive, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files, reveals new information, from a source in Libya, about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the former US “ghost prisoner” who died in a Libyan jail last month, focusing, in particular, on the prisons in which he was held, and the ways in which torture was used by his interrogators. Since the story first emerged last month that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (whose real name was Ali Abdul Hamid al-Fakheri) had died in a Libyan prison, speculation has been rife that the Libyan newspaper Oea, which claimed that he had died by committing suicide, was covering up the fact that he had actually been murdered. "Once the Bush administration’s most famous “ghost prisoner,” al-Libi had been the emir of the Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, but his notoriety stemmed not from his own activities, but from the fact that, after his capture in December 2001, he was rendered by the CIA to Egypt, where, under torture, he made a false confession that two al-Qaeda operatives had been receiving information from Saddam Hussein about the use of chemical and biological weapons, which was subsequently used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The death of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi There were several signs to indicate that the story of al-Libi’s death was suspicious. Oea is owned by one of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons, and, as Hafed al-Ghwell, a Libyan-American and a prominent critic of the Gaddafi regime, explained to Newsweek, “This idea of committing suicide in your prison cell is an old story in Libya.” He added that, throughout Gaddafi’s 40-year rule, there had been several instances in which political prisoners were reported to have committed suicide, but that “then the families get the bodies back and discover the prisoners had been shot in the back or tortured to death.”

hlen5 -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 10:15:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is never ok. It is morally wrong and it doesn't work. QFT.

Moonhead -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 10:39:08 AM)
[img]http://clatl.com/imager/b/magnum/1280267/b788/bad_modernworld3-1_03.jpg[/img]

papassion -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 11:59:19 AM)
Torture doesn't work? Ask the French underground who learned, the hard way, that Hitler's SS had ways to gain info. The French underground split information about a plan so each person only had a small piece of the whole plan. That way, no matter how severe the torture, the Germans would only get small, seemingly, non useful information. If someone does the most painful thing you can think of for only 10 seconds, then stops, then tells you that if the info you gave doesn't check out, this is going to happen until you die, are you telling me you would still give false info? Horseshit!

DomKen -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 12:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Torture doesn't work? Ask the French underground who learned, the hard way, that Hitler's SS had ways to gain info. The French underground split information about a plan so each person only had a small piece of the whole plan. That way, no matter how severe the torture, the Germans would only get small, seemingly, non useful information. If someone does the most painful thing you can think of for only 10 seconds, then stops, then tells you that if the info you gave doesn't check out, this is going to happen until you die, are you telling me you would still give false info? Horseshit! It haapens all the time. That's how we know torture does not work.

kdsub -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 2:01:51 PM)
It is wrong...it used to be what set us apart from adversaries...not any more. This I say on an intellectual level pertaining to my government. On a personal level I am not so sure, under extreme circumstances where information would save lives, that I would not inflict some pain. I am honest anyway. Butch

lovmuffin -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 2:59:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is never ok. It is morally wrong and it doesn't work. Give me a butane burner [8D]

kalikshama -> RE: Why is torture ok? (4/23/2013 3:58:55 PM)
The Tortured Brain Sep 20, 2009 8:00 PM EDT While we wait for Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, or the CIA to release evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced useful, truthful intelligence that could not be obtained without torture, neuroscientists are weighing in on how likely torture is to elicit such information—and they are not impressed. It's become the conventional wisdom that the tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, and that "anything" need not be truthful as long as it is what the torturers want to hear. But years worth of studies in neuroscience, as well as new research, suggest that there are, in addition, fundamental aspects of neurochemistry that increase the chance that information obtained under torture will not be truthful. ...Scientists do not pretend to know, in any individual case, whether torture might extract useful information. But as neurobiologist Shane O'Mara of the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience in Dublin explains in a paper in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciencecalled "Torturing the Brain," "the use of such techniques appears motivated by a folk psychology that is demonstrably incorrect. Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or 'enhanced' interrogation." Read more about the neurochemistry of torture from Newsweek via: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/21/the-tortured-brain.html

MasterCaneman -> RE: Why is torture ok? (4/23/2013 4:39:16 PM)
Isn't it ironic that we're discussing torture on a BDSM site and the general consensus is negative on the subject? [;)]

DomKen -> RE: Why is torture ok? (4/23/2013 4:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman Isn't it ironic that we're discussing torture on a BDSM site and the general consensus is negative on the subject? [;)] We're talking about nonconsensual torture of prisoners to elicit information not consensual torture to satisfy other desires.

MasterCaneman -> RE: Why is torture ok? (4/23/2013 5:00:02 PM)
I know. In this case, it would largely be irrelevant-there's no pressing need to get any information from the kid, as in all likelihood he knows very little that would be of interest. The real prize became a bullet-sponge, so the whole discussion has largely been academic. The truth is, if there's a real need to get the information out, i.e. where's the bomb hidden, and when will it go off, it doesn't matter to the man in the street how that knowledge was gleaned, only in that the bomb was found and safely defused. Period. When force is applied to us as a people, we must be prepared and willing to apply force in response. That can take the form of everything from a carrier task force to a drone strike to mind-fucking a captured terrorist until he/she gives up the information they hold. Not as an instrument of revenge or as a warning to others. Merely as an application of force to effect a positive outcome. If someone has chosen to become our enemy, they should be prepared to endure whatever force we choose to repel them with. Asymmetrical Warfare can only be fought successfully using the tactics and techniques of the adversary. Granted, I don't advocate duplicating them exactly, but when your opponent is fighting dirty, you have to as well. Nor am I suggesting they go medieval on them, not in the least. There are 'kinder and gentler' methods that can be used, chemicals, sensory deprivation, overstimuli. But that's for a long-term questioning. In simple words, if they have to slap the shit out of some knucklehead in order to find out where he hid the bombs, I'm good with it, and I'll bet you would be too.

DarkSteven -> RE: Why is torture ok? (4/23/2013 5:10:14 PM)
The bitch of it is that any results, true or false, could easily be classified. if the result were useful, they couldn't be disclosed. If they weren't, that info sure as hell will not be released. Many of Obama's policies have disappointed me as not being clean breaks from Bush's policies, and the legacy of torture is one.

Extravagasm -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 6:12:14 PM)
In international business, there is not a RIGHT to know what the competition is planning, even though it could lead to your business's demise. In personal relations, there is not a RIGHT to know what your neighbor is planning, even though it could lead to your detriment. In sports, there is not a RIGHT to know what your adversary is planning, even though it can lead to your defeat. In international politics, there is not a RIGHT to know what another country is planning, even though it can lead to dangers. There is similarly not something like a RIGHT to know how your enemy is planning. It's not the same as the RIGHT to defend. If defending were inextricable from forcing adversaries transparent, then the world would be different than what we know, from birth onward, in every aspect of culture. We would be gods. For this reason, arguments about efficacy of torture will always be shallow, evasive, and morally irrelevant. It is the RIGHT to the information in the first place, that does not exist, under natural law or any other. Would Japanese spies and captors have had a RIGHT to extract torture-info from whoever they deemed knowledgeable US persons, or those who they deemed could lead to knowledgeable persons. So to warn whole populations of imminent Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

DarkSteven -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 6:53:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm In international business, there is not a RIGHT to know what the competition is planning, even though it could lead to your business's demise. In personal relations, there is not a RIGHT to know what your neighbor is planning, even though it could lead to your detriment. In sports, there is not a RIGHT to know what your adversary is planning, even though it can lead to your defeat. In international politics, there is not a RIGHT to know what another country is planning, even though it can lead to dangers. There is similarly not something like a RIGHT to know how your enemy is planning. It's not the same as the RIGHT to defend. If defending were inextricable from forcing adversaries transparent, then the world would be different than what we know, from birth onward, in every aspect of culture. We would be gods. For this reason, arguments about efficacy of torture will always be shallow, evasive, and morally irrelevant. It is the RIGHT to the information in the first place, that does not exist, under natural law or any other. Would Japanese spies and captors have had a RIGHT to extract torture-info from knowledgeable US persons, and warn whole populations of imminent Hiroshima? I have never ever heard it mentioned. WTF? Your assertion is that intelligence networks are not legit. The Japanese were closely monitoring all our communications. That's why the US needed to use the Navajo Code Talkers in WWII to avoid having them translate our intelligence.

Aylee -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 7:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm Would Japanese spies and captors have had a RIGHT to extract torture-info from whoever they deemed knowledgeable US persons, or those who they deemed could lead to knowledgeable persons. And warn whole populations of imminent Hiroshima or Nagasaki ? I have never ever heard it mentioned. What in the world? Why would they have done that? We dropped leaflets.

Extravagasm -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 7:10:56 PM)
quote: DarkSteven: WTF? Your assertion is that intelligence networks are not legit. Fair question. But you misunderstand. My steadfast lifetime conclusion is that they cannot have a right to torture, since they do not have an absolute right to the info in the first place. It must be obtained voluntarily or by slight.

Extravagasm -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 7:17:34 PM)
quote: Aylee: Why would they have done that? We dropped leaflets. Unfortunately, you've evaded the clear question I ask of would they have had that RIGHT to extract torture info from whom they deemed would lead to value result. Besides what did the leaflets say or accomplish?

Aylee -> RE: Wh is torture ok? (4/23/2013 7:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm quote: Aylee: Why would they have done that? We dropped leaflets. Unfortunately, you've evaded the clear question I ask of would they have had that RIGHT to extract torture info from whom they deemed would lead to value result. Yes they would have that "right." There is also something called reprisals. quote: Besides what did the leaflets say or accomplish? One side of the leaflet had a photo of five U.S. bombers unloading bombs and a list of the targeted cities. The other side had the text. “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02