citizenkhan
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Torture of terror suspects to be outlawed in USA
Tentative deal? Why is it so hard to swear off inhumane treatment?
Bush "Bans" Torture of Terror Suspects
- Thread starter citizenkhan
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Torture of terror suspects to be outlawed in USA
Tentative deal? Why is it so hard to swear off inhumane treatment?
Kan-Kerai
Still Mildly Glowing
With all due respect to Mr. McCain (one of the very few politicians that warrants it), this changes nothing. He tried, but another loophole slipped through. Torture -IN- the USA.
The USA already outsources most of its torture to third world nations (Azerbaijan, for one), so this is nothing but a political bullshit maneuver to throw the short-sighted bloodhounds of the media off the trail. And most civilians just swallow anything as long as it's spoonfed, so this move will likely stop them from mooing too much- at least until the bloodhounds manage to regain the scent trail.
You have to love selective wording, it's allowed our government to accomplish SO much throughout the years.
The USA already outsources most of its torture to third world nations (Azerbaijan, for one), so this is nothing but a political bullshit maneuver to throw the short-sighted bloodhounds of the media off the trail. And most civilians just swallow anything as long as it's spoonfed, so this move will likely stop them from mooing too much- at least until the bloodhounds manage to regain the scent trail.
You have to love selective wording, it's allowed our government to accomplish SO much throughout the years.
Kan-Kerai said:
Yeah, I'm quite certain McCain didn't count on the torture being reclassified as "rigorous interrogation techniques", as he fondly remembered being "interrogated" by the Viet Cong himself. Maybe we should let McCain give Bush a deserving clue in the Viet Cong tradition, and see if Bush likes to continue supporting and finding loopholes to continue this crap.
It's like Bush is suddenly discovering that torture has been outlawed for years, which is pretty sad for a supposed "King of Kings".
citizenkhan
It Wandered In From the Wastes
George W. Rex
Kind of reminds me of Condo Rice's replies to European questions about CIA-flights on European ground;
"We assure you that no War on Terror prisoners have been moved from one European country to another with the purpose of torturing them."
No, that's true, I'm pretty sure they haven't been moved between European countries but rather just in and out of them. And I doubt they were moved with the purose of torturing them, since torture is a means, not a purpose.
They're getting good at this double-speak.
"We assure you that no War on Terror prisoners have been moved from one European country to another with the purpose of torturing them."
No, that's true, I'm pretty sure they haven't been moved between European countries but rather just in and out of them. And I doubt they were moved with the purose of torturing them, since torture is a means, not a purpose.
They're getting good at this double-speak.
I just wish they would all realize how lowly they are as living beings and all commit suicide in amusing ways.
Maybe those prisoners were scared of travelling? In that case they could have been moved between countries with the purpose of torturing them.
citizenkhan
It Wandered In From the Wastes
And we call that "surgically precise" language. I'd much prefer not to be operated on by my government, wouldn't you?
Torturing foreign suspects and POW are acts of wrong, but the term "torturing" is really abiguous. I mean what you think as "torture" might not be torture in somes else view. To me keep suspects in prison cells agaist their wills is already a mild torture.
In my views torture is acceptable only if it can save many more lives or prevent disaster that would kill many. But i disagree on torturing POWs, all they want is to serve their duty which is a good thing. you shouldn't hate your enemy anyway
In my views torture is acceptable only if it can save many more lives or prevent disaster that would kill many. But i disagree on torturing POWs, all they want is to serve their duty which is a good thing. you shouldn't hate your enemy anyway
No. Nonononono NO.
DUDE.
Use your brains for once.
There is NEVER a legitimation for torture.
The problem is not only that torture is incredibly INEFFICIENT (and always has been) as a means of interrogation, but also that you CAN'T make exception if you ban torture.
The ends CAN NOT justify the means.
You can NEVER be sure you got the right one. It can just be very very likely (heck, not even if he's got the smoking gun still in his hands you'll know he's the one).
If you allow for torture being used in exceptional situations, you're already undermining the whole ban.
As for the definition: if you got some time on your hands, research international law. There are pretty clear definitions of torture.
I think even the Geneva Convention defines it quite clearly.
We had this discussion in Germany when a couple of policemen decided to physically and mentally abuse a suspect in order to find the location of a child he had abducted, abused and left to die.
IIRC they eventually got him to tell them, but the child had already been dead.
In addition there's also the same problem as with corporal punishments -- or invasion of privacy without justified suspicions. Namely: False positives.
DUDE.
Use your brains for once.
There is NEVER a legitimation for torture.
The problem is not only that torture is incredibly INEFFICIENT (and always has been) as a means of interrogation, but also that you CAN'T make exception if you ban torture.
The ends CAN NOT justify the means.
You can NEVER be sure you got the right one. It can just be very very likely (heck, not even if he's got the smoking gun still in his hands you'll know he's the one).
If you allow for torture being used in exceptional situations, you're already undermining the whole ban.
As for the definition: if you got some time on your hands, research international law. There are pretty clear definitions of torture.
I think even the Geneva Convention defines it quite clearly.
We had this discussion in Germany when a couple of policemen decided to physically and mentally abuse a suspect in order to find the location of a child he had abducted, abused and left to die.
IIRC they eventually got him to tell them, but the child had already been dead.
In addition there's also the same problem as with corporal punishments -- or invasion of privacy without justified suspicions. Namely: False positives.
Ashmo said:
hmmm... i must say you have a point. But torture for info seems like a valuable tool. I guess if its banned it should be stopped completely. The guys tortureing suspects have to come up with other ways of extracting info like offering candy in exchange for info.
You see, many might have noticed that i don't consider human rights allot (F*** It
). But must admit its not a good thing to do since its the building blocks for humanity. And i appreciate it when people remind me and pin point the mistakes 
Torture is not valuable. It's a crappy tool.
If you got the right one, it's likely that you'll get a confession and full info if you torture him long enough.
In every other case you'll get confessions and detailed info as well -- even if they have to make it up.
Y'see, torture leads to results, but if you can't verify that the person you torture actually has the knowledge you want, it will only result in false information -- which is not only useless but also counter-productive.
With interrogation usually causing the problem that you don't get enough information (part of it being false) because a perpetrator might not give in, torture causes the problem that you get too much information (most of it being false) because the subject might give in too much (and just tell you what you want to hear, not what he or she actually knows -- or more importantly: doesn't know).
If you got the right one, it's likely that you'll get a confession and full info if you torture him long enough.
In every other case you'll get confessions and detailed info as well -- even if they have to make it up.
Y'see, torture leads to results, but if you can't verify that the person you torture actually has the knowledge you want, it will only result in false information -- which is not only useless but also counter-productive.
With interrogation usually causing the problem that you don't get enough information (part of it being false) because a perpetrator might not give in, torture causes the problem that you get too much information (most of it being false) because the subject might give in too much (and just tell you what you want to hear, not what he or she actually knows -- or more importantly: doesn't know).
Like I said before; people that think torture is a good means to get to the truth would do well to remember that it was the primo means of getting witches to confess in days gone by.
Besides, there is a documented case of American lives being lost because a tortured prisoner gave false information.
Besides, there is a documented case of American lives being lost because a tortured prisoner gave false information.
welsh
Junkmaster
I think it pays to be careful here.
You may assume that torture is being used as a means to coercive a confession or obtain critical information that might not otherwise be available.
I personally cannot speak to how effective modern torture is, though I would assume that there is truth in the idea that, in the end, everyone talks.
But-
You fail to appreciate that torture may be used irregardless of whether it extracts useful information.
It could merely be a means of repression.
In which case the more you talk about it, the better a means it becomes.
So-
let's say that you are thinking of joining a terror network.
But you find out that a number of other likeminded people got picked up by the authorities and had a rather long party with a bucket of water, a rubber hose, and a few live wires.
These men came back after spending a couple of months away and are now completely psychology destroyed and suffering from forms of Post Traumatic Stress that give psychologists nightmares.
Perhaps you might change your mind?
In otherwords, torture is also a form of terrorism.
You may assume that torture is being used as a means to coercive a confession or obtain critical information that might not otherwise be available.
I personally cannot speak to how effective modern torture is, though I would assume that there is truth in the idea that, in the end, everyone talks.
But-
You fail to appreciate that torture may be used irregardless of whether it extracts useful information.
It could merely be a means of repression.
In which case the more you talk about it, the better a means it becomes.
So-
let's say that you are thinking of joining a terror network.
But you find out that a number of other likeminded people got picked up by the authorities and had a rather long party with a bucket of water, a rubber hose, and a few live wires.
These men came back after spending a couple of months away and are now completely psychology destroyed and suffering from forms of Post Traumatic Stress that give psychologists nightmares.
Perhaps you might change your mind?
In otherwords, torture is also a form of terrorism.
welsh
Junkmaster
Don't vat Wooz. S doesn't get the what you're talking about.
S- go back to China or stop spamming.
Stay on topic folks.
S- go back to China or stop spamming.
Stay on topic folks.
Chill, Wizzle-el shee. Vizzated the fessin' wack posts, yo.
Mods 4 Life.
Mods 4 Life.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Tourture is a interogation process that needs to be regulated, but not banned. It is a way to get hard core Gihadists, trained and utterly devoted to their cause to speak otherwise they will keep silent. Sometimes the only way to gain info is by causing physical and mental circumstances that lead a prisoner to talking.
bob_the_rambler said:
And you, sir, are solid proof that humanity will never ever learn from history alone.
The rate of false positives, i.e. false pieces of information the suspect will reveal under torture, is too high to make the process efficient.
The only way torture can be feasible is if you also use as a punishment, because that way the information gathering is only of secondary importance -- but the absence of corporal punishments is what makes the modern Western World civilised.
[rant]
Oh, right, the US still has a death penalty based on revenge -- I guess the civilised world consists of less countries than most people think.
(I'm not against the death penalty, it's just ridiculous to use it as a punishment. I think it should be the last option when re-socialisation fails (or is not an option), but that shows a flaw in the re-socialisation programme (which can possibly never be perfect).)
[/rant]
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
So we should attempt to re-socialize with people that have been known to be willing to strap bombs to themselves? What would we re-socialize them in? the reason the are the way they are is because of socialization into a way of life. Mind you that they have been told the the West will try and pollute their minds with lies, what makes you think that they can be "re-socialized"? The information given by torture is only shady when a prisoner is tortured to far, to the point that they will say anything to make the pain stop. The death penalty is a revenge punishment.....hmm ok your point is? If your sister (if you have one) was killed for the sole purpose of satisfying the need for a good skull fuck, from some crazy criminally insane psycopath. Im pretty sure you would want to see the bastard dead. You would give to shits of a care if he was "re-socialized or not.
Don't you just love it when people ignore the entire second half of what they're replying to just so it fits into their cookie-cutter bashing-scheme?
Durr... read, think, post. In that order. Now try again.
The death penalty is not intrinsically a punishment. If you read what I wrote, you'd already realize that.
My other point is that torture never gains purely reliable information. No matter how severe.
Ah, right. And because I as an individual have a craving to kill him -- or the person that got the blame for the crime -- that means he should be killed out of spite?
Sorry, dude, but the entire point of our legal system is to be objective about this kind of thing. There's no factual gain from killing someone who can easily become a productive member of society (remember that "gangster" Schwarzenegger let fry some weeks ago? The only reason he was still on the death row was that he never aknowledged that he comitted the crimes he had been charged for) -- other than the peace of mind of some individuals and a mass of people who were stirred up by the media.
This is the very reason why lynching is FORBIDDEN in western countries. It may be "fair" on the subjective level ("He's evil, so why can't we kill him?") but its all but on the judical level.
Revenge is not what modern law is about. Modern law is about preventing crimes from recurring -- and the preventive quality of corporal punishments has already been debunked.
Durr... read, think, post. In that order. Now try again.
The death penalty is not intrinsically a punishment. If you read what I wrote, you'd already realize that.
My other point is that torture never gains purely reliable information. No matter how severe.
Ah, right. And because I as an individual have a craving to kill him -- or the person that got the blame for the crime -- that means he should be killed out of spite?
Sorry, dude, but the entire point of our legal system is to be objective about this kind of thing. There's no factual gain from killing someone who can easily become a productive member of society (remember that "gangster" Schwarzenegger let fry some weeks ago? The only reason he was still on the death row was that he never aknowledged that he comitted the crimes he had been charged for) -- other than the peace of mind of some individuals and a mass of people who were stirred up by the media.
This is the very reason why lynching is FORBIDDEN in western countries. It may be "fair" on the subjective level ("He's evil, so why can't we kill him?") but its all but on the judical level.
Revenge is not what modern law is about. Modern law is about preventing crimes from recurring -- and the preventive quality of corporal punishments has already been debunked.