|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 09:52:21 [Permalink]
|
I said torture can work, not that it works in every circumstance or that I support it. I refuse to see this issue in black and white. The government are not evil people who torture people for fun even though they know it will not work. And there is a big different between waterboarding and extreme forms of torture such as slow-death or mutilation.
"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 10/19/2007 09:53:55 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 11:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, what do you support then? If it were put to a vote, what would you choose?
A. Let the government torture when they think it's necessary.
B. Forbid torture under any circumstance.
Despite the uh, "controversy", over the definition of torture, for the purposes of this exercise, assume water boarding - the convincing sensation of being drowned (that is, everything involved in drowning to death, (a drawn out, agonizing and horrifying way to die), except the actual death) - is torture.
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/19/2007 11:01:00 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2007 : 15:07:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Perhaps Michael Mukasey should be waterboarded, then he could accurately determine if it is indeed torture.
On Fire said:
| I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but lets face it, tortue [sic] CAN work, and this kind of torture is pretty tame. |
References please.
|
I would consider John McCain to be an expert. He said:
"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 21:47:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Right yeah let me just do an internet search for 'information gained through torture that is genuine' that should link me directly to the Guantanamo bay top secret files. |
And this hidden evidence must say that torture can work because otherwise it wouldn't be common sense?| Let me just clarify, are you two guys saying torture never works? Because the opposite of 'CAN work' which is the qualifier I used, is 'CANNOT work'. You are disagreeing with my statement that torture CAN work, which means you are saying it CANNOT work, implying a 100% failure rate. |
How utterly monochromatic of you. And yet you say that you refuse to see this issue in black-and-white terms. Good grief.
Asking for support of a position does not imply support of a diametrically opposing position. That is seeing things in black-and-white. A textbook case of "false dichotomy." It's especially damning in your case, OFFC, because you know that there are positions to be found in between.
Can torture "work?" Sure. The problem with it is that there's no way to tell who it'll work on before you actually do it. And so there's no way to know if any information gleaned from the torture is correct until it's checked out by other, non-torturing means. So why torture at all if non-torture methods exist to gain the same information, which you must use anyway to double-check the tortured-out information before you can actually use it?
With that in mind, it's clear that torture cannot save time or lives any better than guessing, even if torture "works" in some percentage of cases less than 100%.
I would also think that the more "tame" a form of torture is, the less likely it is that it will "work," and thus any argument in favor of water-boarding shoots itself in the foot. But this is speculation on my part. For all I know, the hidden evidence says that simply being shown dental tools works best of all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 17:31:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Can torture "work?" Sure. The problem with it is that there's no way to tell who it'll work on before you actually do it. |
It'll "work" on most people. Almost no one is actually immune to torture.
| And so there's no way to know if any information gleaned from the torture is correct until it's checked out by other, non-torturing means. |
Often there won't be a need for %100 certainty before the information can be used. In other cases the information acquired through torture may enable the gathering of further collaborative information. Also you could verify against information tortured out of a seperate source so you don't nessessarily need a non-torture source for confirmation.
| So why torture at all if non-torture methods exist to gain the same information, which you must use anyway to double-check the tortured-out information before you can actually use it? |
False premise. But even granting the premise that non-torture methods must exist for tortured-out information to be useful, there still could be reasons to torture. For example, to verify dubious non-tortured-out information.
| With that in mind, it's clear that torture cannot save time or lives any better than guessing, even if torture "works" in some percentage of cases less than 100%. |
Not at all. No method works %100 of the time. But clearly they can still manage to improve over guessing.
I'm anti-torture but I'm against torture because it is morally wrong not because of it's mythical ineffectiveness. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 20:04:25 [Permalink]
|
First off, let me state in no uncertain terms that the ineffectiveness of torture is not why I am anti-torture.Originally posted by dv82matt
It'll "work" on most people. Almost no one is actually immune to torture. |
There's a whole lot of unstated variables at play. Being "immune" to torture wasn't what I had in mind, though. The question is whether or not it reliably produces accurate information. That's what I meant by "works." For example, if your superiors have fed you false information before sending you on a mission with a high probability of capture (even with mission success), then torture cannot possibly "work" on you because the information you'll provide is wrong.| And so there's no way to know if any information gleaned from the torture is correct until it's checked out by other, non-torturing means. |
Often there won't be a need for %100 certainty before the information can be used. In other cases the information acquired through torture may enable the gathering of further collaborative information. Also you could verify against information tortured out of a seperate source so you don't nessessarily need a non-torture source for confirmation. |
"A separate source" is what I meant. Unless you're talking about another torture victim. And don't forget that it's torture by the United States we're talking about, and with the Iraq fiasco there's already a demand that all sources of information get verified through other means before use.| False premise. But even granting the premise that non-torture methods must exist for tortured-out information to be useful, there still could be reasons to torture. For example, to verify dubious non-tortured-out information. |
If torture-information is itself dubious, using it to verify other dubious information doesn't make much sense to me.| Not at all. No method works %100 of the time. But clearly they can still manage to improve over guessing. |
I don't see how. Given an inability to predict what methods will "work" on any particular person, and an inability to know what that person knows (which would remove the need for torture, anyway), who can say that the answer to a particular question won't be different when the person is waterboarded or seared with hot pokers. And if it is different, then which one is the correct answer? Who's to say that drawing the victim is not what it would take to actually "break" him, and he just gave you crap answers and tried to look "broken" when you waterboarded and burned him? How can there be an end to torture other than death, and even then, how can you know the information you got is worth the expense and risk of corroborating?
Are the scientific studies on the effectiveness of torture as a means of gathering accurate information better or worse than the studies on the polygraph? That device which, according to the most-rigorous studies on it, "works" only when the subject believes it will "work," and hasn't caught a single spy or crook on its own merits. Or is torture only properly used in a similar fashion, in which case if we know that, then our enemies know that and torture becomes a worthless enterprise? (Of course, after the big DOE study that damned polygraphy came out, the Feds decided to increase their use of polygraphy instead of drop it - our taxpayer money at work opposite to the best scientific evidence.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 22:00:52 [Permalink]
|
The problem with torture is not that it's ineffective. It's that it's too effective. An innocent man will consent to whatever crimes you accuse him of.
When considering the pros and cons of torture, it seems people only imagine it ever being applied to guilty people. But of course, we know this to be a fantasy of the highest order. The US government has already had to release prisoners from Guantanamo because they turned out to be innocent men. Oops!
So it's a good thing we don't torture, or next thing you know we might have innocent men confessing to things they didn't do, plans they never hatched, crimes they didn't commit or even plan on committing. It might even lead to prosecuting people in secret trials, based on evidence they aren't allowed access to, and backed up by confessions obtained through torture. And if you press those people start giving up the names of more people? Look out, we got a good old fashioned witch hunt on our hands. Grab the torches and rope, boys.
Oh, such a method might not be able to stop a single crime with such a noise of bogus information coming in, but at least there'd be no shortage of prisoners to blame it all on. It would certainly appear to the public as if crimes were being prevented, which a cynic might suggest is most important anyway.
Good thing such mistakes could never really happen, right?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/22/2007 22:22:13 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 23:13:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
First off, let me state in no uncertain terms that the ineffectiveness of torture is not why I am anti-torture. |
People have a tendency to think in cliches, "Crime never pays", "Honesty is the best policy" and such. That comment of mine was not directed at you in particular but it seems to me that "Torture is ineffective" is becoming a statement made without much thought given to its actual accuracy because it seems like something we should believe.
| There's a whole lot of unstated variables at play. Being "immune" to torture wasn't what I had in mind, though. The question is whether or not it reliably produces accurate information. That's what I meant by "works." For example, if your superiors have fed you false information before sending you on a mission with a high probability of capture (even with mission success), then torture cannot possibly "work" on you because the information you'll provide is wrong. |
Yeah, but all methods of information gathering have their limitations and pitfalls. That is like faulting a car because it is ineffective on water.
| Often there won't be a need for %100 certainty before the information can be used. In other cases the information acquired through torture may enable the gathering of further collaborative information. Also you could verify against information tortured out of a seperate source so you don't nessessarily need a non-torture source for confirmation. |
"A separate source" is what I meant. Unless you're talking about another torture victim. |
Hmmm... I gave three scenarios where torture derived information could be useful. I'm not sure what you are clarifying here.
| And don't forget that it's torture by the United States we're talking about, and with the Iraq fiasco there's already a demand that all sources of information get verified through other means before use. |
I don't think any of us really knows how effective US torture methods are. I think this aspect of the conversation was about the effectiveness of torture in general.
| If torture-information is itself dubious, using it to verify other dubious information doesn't make much sense to me. |
Why not? If you are in a room with twenty clocks and half the clocks tell the correct time and the other half are set to random times it would take you all of ten seconds to figure out the correct time. It's the same principle.
| Not at all. No method works %100 of the time. But clearly they can still manage to improve over guessing. |
I don't see how. Given an inability to predict what methods will "work" on any particular person, and an inability to know what that person knows (which would remove the need for torture, anyway), who can say that the answer to a particular question won't be different when the person is waterboarded or seared with hot pokers. And if it is different, then which one is the correct answer? Who's to say that drawing the victim is not what it would take to actually "break" him, and he just gave you crap answers and tried to look "broken" when you waterboarded and burned him? How can there be an end to torture other than death, and even then, how can you know the information you got is worth the expense and risk of corroborating? |
I can't give you your givens. The inability to predict what methods will "work" is like the inability to predict which key fit your ignition. Try them out until you find the one that fits. So how does the torturer know when he's found a method that works? That brings us to...
The inability to know what that person knows is not entirely accurate either. A common tecnique is to begin by extracting information that is already known in order to better judge if the victim is being honest before extracting new information so the torturer often does know much of what the victim knows. This makes it harder for the victim to know when a lie would be effective and when it would simply alert the torturer to his deception.
| Are the scientific studies on the effectiveness of torture as a means of gathering accurate information better or worse than the studies on the polygraph? |
I haven't seen any studies on the effectiveness of torture for information gathering.
That device which, according to the most-rigorous studies on it, "works" only when the subject believes it will "work," and hasn't caught a single spy or crook on its own merits. Or is torture only properly used in a similar fashion, in which case if we know that, then our enemies know that and torture becomes a worthless enterprise? (Of course, after the big DOE study that damned polygraphy came out, the Feds decided to increase their use of polygraphy instead of drop it - our taxpayer money at work opposite to the best scientific evidence.)
|
Yeah the polygraph is fairly worthless. I don't see how you could think that torture works in a similar way to the polygraph though. Maybe that's not what you meant? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 11:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yeah the polygraph is fairly worthless. I don't see how you could think that torture works in a similar way to the polygraph though. Maybe that's not what you meant? |
No, it was precisely what I meant. That perhaps the best use of torture is as nothing more than a threat. The only way the polygraph works is by getting people to confess before they're even hooked up to the machine. I'd imagine that most regular people would give up a lot of information simply because they're told they're going to be tortured.
As to the rest, I suppose it's all speculative, given the lack of studies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 11:58:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yeah the polygraph is fairly worthless. I don't see how you could think that torture works in a similar way to the polygraph though. Maybe that's not what you meant? |
No, it was precisely what I meant. That perhaps the best use of torture is as nothing more than a threat. The only way the polygraph works is by getting people to confess before they're even hooked up to the machine. I'd imagine that most regular people would give up a lot of information simply because they're told they're going to be tortured. |
Ok, I see what you mean. I suspect though that the threat of torture would be less effective if it were empty.
| As to the rest, I suppose it's all speculative, given the lack of studies. |
Yes, although that oversight may not be rectified anytime soon. I can't imagine why people are so reluctant to participate in such studies.  |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
No I don't think I need to. I said it can work, you can dispute that if you wish but I think we all know it's true.
In all human history torture has to work exactly once for me to be correct. So I'm satisfied to have a 'citation required' under my post. feel free to continue to ignore the elephant in the corner.
|
You know, you're a really funny guy sometimes...
So, at what hit-rate is torture considered successful? How much pain and suffering is it worth, to have truthful statements 10% of the time and the rest of the time it's innocent people getting tortured? Or criminals who give the truth only 10% of the time.
Or what other percentage?
| stands to reason. If someone has you hogtied and says tell me your pin number or I'll pull out your fingernails, and if you lie to me, I'll come back and pull out your toenails. You don't envisage that working? Sources, please, it's common sense. |
Wouldn't that depend on what that pin code was for?
I would give up the pin code to my ATM card that had a few hundred on it.
But what if I tortured you, for the PIN-code access to your family's house? Would you resist, of pain from removed fingernails? What if you think that I would sell the PIN-code to someone you have a strong suspicion would use it to enter, tie down your father and force him to watch the perpetrator rape you mother and sister and finally kill them all off. Would that be worth your fingernails and toenails to you?
Prisoners at Guantanamo (who's guilt haven't even been established!) may have reason to suspect that a US armed force would strike at any location he would give up. Some of his loved ones might be at that location. You could torture him to your heart's content and still get nothing from him. Which means that you have inflicted pain for no use at all, other than that he is serious about not telling you what you want to know.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/23/2007 19:10:07 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:19:32 [Permalink]
|
I forgot... If they also believe in Christ, they'll go to heaven if you give away the PIN-number. It's a win-win situation for you: You don't have to be tortured, and your family would go to a better place (heaven).
On the other hand: If you had been an Extremist Islamist, provoking your torturers to kill you would grant you 72 virgins in Heaven. What's a little pain compared to that? The I wouldn't get the PIN-code.
<warning: massive sarcasm>
On the other hand, I would get sexual release from inflicting pain on you if I, God forbid, was so inclined: Being in the American Army I would volunteer for such a job. It's a dirty work but someone has to enjoy it.
<end sarcasm>
(Just to be sure no one misunderstands: I'm not a sadist, this was a hypothetical situation)
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
what if you DO have a pin number.
oh and Jesus probably wouldn't torture anybody.
|
Neither should anyone else. Not even American soldiers.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:51:08 [Permalink]
|
| Shoulda woulda coulda |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mukasey won't say if "waterboarding" is torture
