Amnesty International’s Ad Against Waterboarding

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

If traditional interrogation methods are working then that is all that should be used. But if "torture" is needed in a rare circumstance for the greater good then so be it.

Why would it be needed? Did you skip over the parts of Marg's post which show that torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation? Why would you want to use an inneffective method of gathering information in scenarios where the most is at stake?

Like McCain said, this isn't Jack Bauer-land.

It would be needed if the PC interrogation techniques did not work. Every prisoner with information would have different techniques that may or may not work.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

You don't have a clue how the real world works. You enjoy your view from your high horse in "LaLa" land.

LALA land would be the belief that the crueler you are, the more information you will get. People who have real world experience will tell you that torture is simply ineffective. Cruelty is not necessarily the same thing as strength.

During medieval witch trials, the interrogators were able to obtain LOTS of "information" through torture. That doesn't mean it was effective information in "the real world" as you put it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Channman 2]

Just an observation, Hollywood being the bastion of all that is LEFT seem to find that torture really does work.

Denzel Washington in the "Burning Man" used several methods of torture to obtain information with great success. Daily Television series show methods of torture that produce results that save lives. / and with Amnesty International having so many advocates in this crowd why it it that there seems to be no out cry.

Hollywood in fact is one of the biggest advocates of torture and If you want to see change, and maybe change public opinion that would be a good place to start.

As for my opinion, Waterboarding seems to have produced valuable information in the past, but then Denzel's method of cutting fingers off seemed to work as well.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I'm in the Navy, and a buddy in my class had to go through SERE school. He got waterboarded, and most likely I will too when I go.

If they can waterboard us, and beat the living crap out of us for training, well..let's just say I have no sympathy whatsoever if a prisoner that wants to cut my head off with a saw gets waterboarded too.

Funny, i went through SERE training too. And i understood that the "torture" they did to us during the resistance portion was meant to teach US how to deal with a shitbag enemy doing it to US....NOT to teach me what our interrogation techniques should be.

I think you might be missing the entire point of SERE...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

As for my opinion, Waterboarding seems to have produced valuable information in the past,

Like?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

It would be needed if the PC interrogation techniques did not work.

But why? The PC interrogation techniques work better than torture does.

If you were struggling to tow a trailer uphill with a V8 pickup truck would you give up after a few goes and hitch it to a 1 litre hatchback instead?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Just an observation, Hollywood being the bastion of all that is LEFT seem to find that torture really does work.

Denzel Washington in the "Burning Man" used several methods of torture to obtain information with great success. Daily Television series show methods of torture that produce results that save lives. / and with Amnesty International having so many advocates in this crowd why it it that there seems to be no out cry.

Hollywood in fact is one of the biggest advocates of torture and If you want to see change, and maybe change public opinion that would be a good place to start.

As for my opinion, Waterboarding seems to have produced valuable information in the past, but then Denzel's method of cutting fingers off seemed to work as well.

OK. Hollywood makes MOVIES. as in FICTION. but you knew that already, I hope.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,406]

>Hollywood being the bastion of all that is LEFT seem to find that torture
>really does work.

Ah, I see your error. Hollywood, you see, is make believe. That information that Denzel Washington got? It was made up. It was fictional. It wasn't real.

It's like The Matrix. Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer, and the right attitude and training cannot enable you to dodge bullets. Indeed, trying to do so might have grim consequences, so I strongly discourage it.

So if you do want ways to survive being threatened with a gun, or ways to get information from prisoners, it's better to go to people with experience with those things in the real world, as opposed to watching Hollywood movies.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Did you skip over the parts of Marg's post which show that torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation? Why would you want to use an inneffective method of gathering information in scenarios where the most is at stake?

Like McCain said, this isn't Jack Bauer-land.

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer . . .

Are you sure of that?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

War is war, it's all about attrition and everyone should be considered a combatant.

So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Did you skip over the parts of Marg's post which show that torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation? Why would you want to use an inneffective method of gathering information in scenarios where the most is at stake?

Like McCain said, this isn't Jack Bauer-land.

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

Who cares what our enemies do. That's not the criterion. The criterion is whether or not it actually works in the real world.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did you skip over the parts of Marg's post which show that torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation? Why would you want to use an inneffective method of gathering information in scenarios where the most is at stake?

Like McCain said, this isn't Jack Bauer-land.

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

Who cares what our enemies do. That's not the criterion. The criterion is whether or not it actually works in the real world.

I think you missed my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying.

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Hollywood being the bastion of all that is LEFT seem to find that torture
>really does work.

Ah, I see your error. Hollywood, you see, is make believe. That information that Denzel Washington got? It was made up. It was fictional. It wasn't real.

It's like The Matrix. Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer, and the right attitude and training cannot enable you to dodge bullets. Indeed, trying to do so might have grim consequences, so I strongly discourage it.

So if you do want ways to survive being threatened with a gun, or ways to get information from prisoners, it's better to go to people with experience with those things in the real world, as opposed to watching Hollywood movies.

My attempt as poorly presented as it may have been was to only mention Hollywood advocates torture via its movies and in doing so it gives it's consent.


In doing so it gives it's consent.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did you skip over the parts of Marg's post which show that torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation? Why would you want to use an inneffective method of gathering information in scenarios where the most is at stake?

Like McCain said, this isn't Jack Bauer-land.

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

Who cares what our enemies do. That's not the criterion. The criterion is whether or not it actually works in the real world.

I think you missed my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying.

And maybe they're saying that torture doesn't work because in fact, it really doesn't work.

Who knows? But if you want to disregard the opinions of people who have real-world experience in interrogation, then who should we turn to instead as an expert? Rush Limbaugh, perhaps?

As I have pointed out, medieval witch-hunters were able to obtain LOTS of information by using torture, but I doubt that most of it was accurate or usable.


Think about it: You hold a bunsen burner to an insurgent's testicles & yeah he will say 'YES YES I CONFESS! I WAS GOING TO PERSONALLY BLOW UP THE WHITEHOUSE!! WHATEVER!!"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Butters 0]

Quote

It's like The Matrix. Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer, and the right attitude and training cannot enable you to dodge bullets. Indeed, trying to do so might have grim consequences, so I strongly discourage it.

Obviously you took the blue pill.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

>Hollywood being the bastion of all that is LEFT seem to find that torture
>really does work.

Ah, I see your error. Hollywood, you see, is make believe. That information that Denzel Washington got? It was made up. It was fictional. It wasn't real.

It's like The Matrix. Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer, and the right attitude and training cannot enable you to dodge bullets. Indeed, trying to do so might have grim consequences, so I strongly discourage it.

So if you do want ways to survive being threatened with a gun, or ways to get information from prisoners, it's better to go to people with experience with those things in the real world, as opposed to watching Hollywood movies.

My attempt as poorly presented as it may have been was to only mention Hollywood advocates torture via its movies and in doing so it gives it's consent.


In doing so it gives it's consent.

Yes, like it gives consent to cannibalism and invasion by extra-terrestrials.

You are deluding yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

Where was it claimed that we don't torture? The links presented show that torture isn't effective, and should be stopped.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 232]

That was pretty cool - like a Nine Inch Nails or Madonna video.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

That would be a very good point, if it was in any way connected with reality. The reports that have been linked to in this thread are at odds with official policy. The president publicly vetoed a bill that would stop the CIA using torture. It is common knowledge the US carries out rendition flights to let our allies torture suspects for us. In short, everyone knows that that the US uses torture and as such (in your scenario) the propoganda value of the reports that have been linked to would be nil.

Quote

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

I guess I'll have to repeat my earlier statement - for some of us, morality has value beyond "Stuff we do to make other people like us". Some of us think that being moral has an intrinsic value of its own.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

My attempt as poorly presented as it may have been was to only mention Hollywood advocates torture via its movies and in doing so it gives it's consent.
In doing so it gives it's consent.

No it doesn't. Some hollywood movies have serial killers and psychopaths as the main characters, that doesn't mean the film makers approve of such behaviour, just that they think it makes a good story.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

I think you missed my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying. And maybe they're saying that torture doesn't work because in fact, it really doesn't work.

Who knows? But if you want to disregard the opinions of people who have real-world experience in interrogation, then who should we turn to instead as an expert? Rush Limbaugh, perhaps?

Think about it: You hold a bunsen burner to an insurgent's testicles & yeah he will say 'YES YES I CONFESS! I WAS GOING TO PERSONALLY BLOW UP THE WHITEHOUSE!! WHATEVER!!"

I think most of the experts were saying that torture doesn't work in most cases - but I don't believe that torture is used in most cases, only in those when the nicer ways haven't worked. So if more humane ways work on 9 out of 10 prisoners, that is most likely what gets used. Torture would then be used in that 1 time when being nice failed. Therefore, it is not the most effective method.

Who should we turn to? Who can we turn to? There probably aren't many experts who will say that torture works because that would go against America's stated policies. Experts (people with real world experience) saying that torture does in fact work would be confirming the fact that America does engage in torture - when it does not (according to policy). So of course you won't get credible experts to admit this.

You would think that someone would cop to anything given enough pain/discomfort. But, there are many out there who are willing to and happy to suffer or die for what they believe. And typically, when interrogating in the scenarios involving terrorists, you aren't seeking to get a confession, you are seeking information on their friends and other events. (Things that can be corroborated)

I also think that it is important to define torture. Taking pictures of naked men stacked in a pyramid doesn't equate to a car battery to the genitals in my book.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I think most of the experts were saying that torture doesn't work in most cases - but I don't believe that torture is used in most cases, only in those when the nicer ways haven't worked. So if more humane ways work on 9 out of 10 prisoners, that is most likely what gets used. Torture would then be used in that 1 time when being nice failed. Therefore, it is not the most effective method.

What? No! You obviously haven't read a single piece of information that's been presented here, otherwise you could not possibly misunderstand things so badly.

Quote

There probably aren't many experts who will say that torture works because that would go against America's stated policies.

Are you joking?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

"No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we."

That would be a very good point, if it was in any way connected with reality. The reports that have been linked to in this thread are at odds with official policy. The president publicly vetoed a bill that would stop the CIA using torture. It is common knowledge the US carries out rendition flights to let our allies torture suspects for us. In short, everyone knows that that the US uses torture and as such (in your scenario) the propoganda value of the reports that have been linked to would be nil.

Quote

One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

I guess I'll have to repeat my earlier statement - for some of us, morality has value beyond "Stuff we do to make other people like us". Some of us think that being moral has an intrinsic value of its own.

At least you've recognized that what the other countries do is immoral and we can't rely upon our sense of morality to be universal.

With regard to rendition flights and official policy, I would say Condi represents official policy:

"The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured." — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

They have to keep up the charade. And reports that state that torture doesn't work is just another part of that.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

At least you've recognized that what the other countries do is immoral and we can't rely upon our sense of morality to be universal.

What do you mean 'recognised'? That's always been my position, and it's the reason I don't want us to copy them!

Quote

"The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured." — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

When was that statement dated?

Seriously, do you realise just how much of a stretch you're making by discounting these reports as 'probably propaganda'?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?