Survey: Church-goers more likely to support torture

[Remster 24]

You will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven!

Remster

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Clearly, waterboarding has produced some positive results for the Japanese, Chinese as well as our GWOT. So it is a time tested method for obtaining needed info. It is time consuming however.

In the past we have obtained good results from the "two friends in a helicopter ride" and the Jack Bauer favorite of shooting the suspect in the kneecap. If that does not produce the necessary intel, shoot the other kneecap. If still no intel, double tap the cranium and move on to the next subject.

I think church-goers are most likely to understand that evil exists in the world. Simply put, evil people don't respond honestly to invitations with milk and cookies.
Just my $0.02.

Jesus weeps not just at those who commit evil in His name, but at those who rationalize it in His name - or despite His name. I suppose the truly devout may be comforted in the belief that He forgives them that sin, as well.

Quote

Simply put, evil people don't respond honestly to invitations with milk and cookies.

Intellectually dishonest on its face, given your obvious intelligence and ability to articulate. A forebearance from engaging in torture hardly equates the "milk and cookies" analogy. Please - save that kind of intelligence-insulting nonsense for the knuckle-draggers.

[riddler 0]

The rest of the article shows a 12% gap, and less than 750 people surveyed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

Quote

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed,

Quote

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21.

I'd have to see a larger statistical sample before I agreed with the statistical significance. I think given a bigger sample, the diffference would narrow a bit. Given that there are a LOT of church-goers in the U.S., there's no reason not to interview more people.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[skinnay 0]

Quote

So now we finally have the answer to "What would Jesus do?"
He'd rip out their fingernails!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

Quote

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

that's surprising.. not.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

The rest of the article shows a 12% gap, and less than 750 people surveyed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

Quote

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed,

Quote

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21.

I'd have to see a larger statistical sample before I agreed with the statistical significance. I think given a bigger sample, the diffference would narrow a bit. Given that there are a LOT of church-goers in the U.S., there's no reason not to interview more people.

Sampling theory suggests that the sample size was plenty large enough to have quite reasonable confidence limits.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Sampling theory suggests that the sample size was plenty large enough to have quite reasonable confidence limits.

Sampling theory eh? So it's not been proven then.

[/sarcasm]

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Sampling theory suggests that the sample size was plenty large enough to have quite reasonable confidence limits.

Sampling theory eh? So it's not been proven then.

[/sarcasm]

R I G H H H T T

Just like gravity.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Sampling theory suggests that the sample size was plenty large enough to have quite reasonable confidence limits.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. There are 218 million adults in the U.S. How does a 1 to one million sampling ratio imply any sort of statistical significance, when it comes to the opinions of a large population?

Additionally, how do you define church-goer, anyway? Gallup did a poll where they asked how often people go to church at least once a week, and the response was 48%. But statistical samples show that only about 20% actually do. So people lie about going to church. Do they think God won't know?

Maybe those same people lie about their opinion. Is is really a good idea to condone torture in a Christian church? When their patron was tortured to death?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>and the Jack Bauer favorite of shooting the suspect in the kneecap.

Apparently the Jack Bauer method of killing his family in front of him works a lot better, and stops the ticking atomic bomb in time. Perhaps the kinder/gentler method of just raping them one by one until he talks would be a better fit for churchgoers, though.

Before criticizing those that don't understand the difference between fiction and reality, you should at least get the fiction correct!

My memory is that nobody was killed, just realistically simulated/staged, so that the suspect was convinced it was real.

Should speaking harshly to a suspect be considered torture? What about bright lights, sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop?

The survey is of course, pure JUNK, because it does not define the type of interrogation that is to be considered torture. Without a clear understanding of what is being considered/objectionable, there is no conclusion to be made. Completely worthless.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>and the Jack Bauer favorite of shooting the suspect in the kneecap.

Apparently the Jack Bauer method of killing his family in front of him works a lot better, and stops the ticking atomic bomb in time. Perhaps the kinder/gentler method of just raping them one by one until he talks would be a better fit for churchgoers, though.

Before criticizing those that don't understand the difference between fiction and reality, you should at least get the fiction correct!

My memory is that nobody was killed, just realistically simulated/staged, so that the suspect was convinced it was real.

Should speaking harshly to a suspect be considered torture? What about bright lights, sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop?

The survey is of course, pure JUNK, because it does not define the type of interrogation that is to be considered torture. Without a clear understanding of what is being considered/objectionable, there is no conclusion to be made. Completely worthless.

I would think that a very high percentage of good American church going christians support anything that punishes those who they believe to be the evildoers as they were identified by the Bush Administration.

[billvon 2,426]

>Should speaking harshly to a suspect be considered torture?

Nope.

>What about bright lights . . .

Nope.

>sleep deprivation . . . .

Provided it's not seriously harming him, no.

>good cop/bad cop?

Nope. Wouldn't it be great if that's the worst we had done? We'd be able to speak out against torture worldwide without looking like hypocrites.

[sundevil777 94]

Without identifying what "torture" method is being OK'd by those responding to the survey, the result is worthless.

I know that many will jump on any opportunity to ridicule those that believe in God/go to church, but this survey is BULLSHIT, probably intended to promote such a prejudice. Of course, as we all know, bigotry toward those that believe in God is OK, right - except if they are Muslim, then it is not allowed.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Without identifying what "torture" method is being OK'd by those responding to the survey, the result is worthless.

I know that many will jump on any opportunity to ridicule those that believe in God/go to church, but this survey is BULLSHIT, probably intended to promote such a prejudice. Of course, as we all know, bigotry toward those that believe in God is OK, right - except if they are Muslim, then it is not allowed.

I think the "torture" parameters have been fairly well established.

If we imprisoned or executed our enemies and have signed treaties that established what it is.... It behooves us NOT to try to justify the use of those methods.

Pssst by the way... all of those causing the current spate of war... all believe in the same GOD.. just different books to guide them in how to kill the evildoers.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>Should speaking harshly to a suspect be considered torture?

Nope.

>What about bright lights . . .

Nope.

>sleep deprivation . . . .

Provided it's not seriously harming him, no.

>good cop/bad cop?

Nope. Wouldn't it be great if that's the worst we had done? We'd be able to speak out against torture worldwide without looking like hypocrites.

There are some on this forum that would not agree, specifically on the sleep deprivation issue.

If it was just a question of whether to allow waterboarding, the debate would be much easier. It is my understanding (perhaps wrong of course), that the Army field manual (now to be the only source of what is allowed - right?) does not allow any of those things you consider to be OK.

I would add the use of intimidation with dogs to the list of things that should be allowed but is likely now prohibited. There are likely a lot of other things that were removed from use, I think it much more interesting to debate those than to focus just on waterboarding.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DanG 1]

From FM 34-52:

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Without identifying what "torture" method is being OK'd by those responding to the survey, the result is worthless.

I know that many will jump on any opportunity to ridicule those that believe in God/go to church, but this survey is BULLSHIT, probably intended to promote such a prejudice. Of course, as we all know, bigotry toward those that believe in God is OK, right - except if they are Muslim, then it is not allowed.

I think the "torture" parameters have been fairly well established.

If we imprisoned or executed our enemies and have signed treaties that established what it is.... It behooves us NOT to try to justify the use of those methods.

Pssst by the way... all of those causing the current spate of war... all believe in the same GOD.. just different books to guide them in how to kill the evildoers.

So, when are you going on trial for torturing our servicemembers, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So, when are you going on trial for torturing our servicemembers, then?

Probably as soon as you vote for anyone not a fringe right whackjob.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, when are you going on trial for torturing our servicemembers, then?

Probably as soon as you vote for anyone not a fringe right whackjob.

Projecting again, Jeanne? Feel free to show where I said that I voted for Bush, either time.

Kindly explain how you doing it as your job is ok, but Bush authorizing it is a war crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

Your one warning.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

From FM 34-52:

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

Well, there we have it - we aren't allowed per the Army Field Manual to do any of the things that even Billvon thinks should be allowed, such as speaking harshly, bright lights, sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop, they're all off-limits.

This debate is about MUCH more than who thinks waterboarding is torture, much more indeed.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DanG 1]

Sort of.

The part that some want to ignore is, IMHO, more important:

Quote

Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

- Dan G

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

From FM 34-52:

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

Well, there we have it - we aren't allowed per the Army Field Manual to do any of the things that even Billvon thinks should be allowed, such as speaking harshly, bright lights, sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop, they're all off-limits.

.

Where did Billvon write that they should be allowed?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Where did Billvon write that they should be allowed?

He did agree that it wasn't torture.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Sort of.

The part that some want to ignore is, IMHO, more important:

Quote

Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

That is the politically correct thing to say. Even Obama was just left with saying that we may have obtained the info without the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Seems like the police are successful in getting confessions and info from suspects with the techniques. Shouldn't the CIA/military be able to do the same?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Where did Billvon write that they should be allowed?

He did agree that it wasn't torture.

THAT is NOT the same thing.

Armed robbery is not murder, but it still shouldn't be allowed.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.