PDA

View Full Version : When torture is right



Pages : [1] 2

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 07:03 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Rudy Pena
June 4th, 2010, 07:05 PM
I agree, torture is right when used properly to save lives or find out certain info for when time is not on your side.

Kaiphantom
June 4th, 2010, 07:08 PM
You have to be damn careful when you do torture, and Young still made missteps here. He didn't tell anyone why he was doing it. A simple "If he's brainwashed, this will break him out of it; I don't plan to let him die, but I need you to act like you think I will."

Torture should be against the rules, but if someone feels it's the only option to save lives, they can risk their career on it. If I was dead sure someone knew something and torture was the only way, and I knew I'd be locked up if I did it... I'd do it anyway. Torture should never be "okay" according to the rules, because that is ripe for abuse. Let men of strong character decide only when they fully accept the consequences of the act.

Because what we have in the US, is damn scary. You could be plucked off the street, declared an enemy combatant (and thus have no rights) and tortured... even if you know nothing. Why? Because torture is allowed, and there is no accountability.

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 07:09 PM
You have to be damn careful when you do torture, and Young still made missteps here. He didn't tell anyone why he was doing it. A simple "If he's brainwashed, this will break him out of it; I don't plan to let him die, but I need you to act like you think I will."

Torture should be against the rules, but if someone feels it's the only option to save lives, they can risk their career on it. If I was dead sure someone knew something and torture was the only way, and I knew I'd be locked up if I did it... I'd do it anyway. Torture should never be "okay" according to the rules, because that is ripe for abuse. Let men of strong character only when they fully accept the consequences of the act.

But why does he need to tell anyone? He's the commanding officer, that's all that matters... he knew what he was doing and that's that. The fact is he was absolutely right in doing what he did.

Rudy Pena
June 4th, 2010, 07:11 PM
You have to be damn careful when you do torture, and Young still made missteps here. He didn't tell anyone why he was doing it. A simple "If he's brainwashed, this will break him out of it; I don't plan to let him die, but I need you to act like you think I will."

Torture should be against the rules, but if someone feels it's the only option to save lives, they can risk their career on it. If I was dead sure someone knew something and torture was the only way, and I knew I'd be locked up if I did it... I'd do it anyway. Torture should never be "okay" according to the rules, because that is ripe for abuse. Let men of strong character only when they fully accept the consequences of the act. We dont even have to use torture, we could just use many different stress positions to break them. ;) Depending on whats needed.

Kaiphantom
June 4th, 2010, 07:15 PM
But why does he need to tell anyone? He's the commanding officer, that's all that matters... he knew what he was doing and that's that. The fact is he was absolutely right in doing what he did.

That's incredibly dangerous speech right there, because you aren't thinking through what you're saying. Whenever you imagine someone having those powers, you always think of the bad guy. Now imagine someone having those, who is a bad guy. Are you okay with a bad guy torturing people? Because *every* power granted to people of authority can and has been been abused. Imagine you are innocent and it's happening to you; what recourse is there? He's the guy in charge and you're being accused.

That's why Wray said he had rights. The true test of a man's principles, is whether he applies them equally to friend and foe alike.

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 07:20 PM
That's incredibly dangerous speech right there, because you aren't thinking through what you're saying. Whenever you imagine someone having those powers, you always think of the bad guy. Now imagine someone having those, who is a bad guy. Are you okay with a bad guy torturing people? Because *every* power granted to people of authority can and has been been abused. Imagine you are innocent and it's happening to you; what recourse is there? He's the guy in charge and you're being accused.

That's why Wray said he had rights. The true test of a man's principles, is whether he applies them equally to friend and foe alike.

No, I am thinking through what I'm saying, but thank you for saying otherwise. Unless the order being given is an illegal one, subordinates cannot question or disobey their superiors. What Young was doing not only made sense given the situation, but was authorized by the highest authority in their chain of command himself. There was nothing wrong or "dangerous" about the situation except Wray not liking that she was left out of the loop and automatically assuming the worst. Had she and Scott read all the files SG personnel are supposed to, they would have realized what was going on, too. Just because Young didn't tell them, whatever his reasons, does not give them the right to question the one in charge. Especially when they're only in the dark because they didn't do the required reading.

Rudy Pena
June 4th, 2010, 07:24 PM
No, I am thinking through what I'm saying, but thank you for saying otherwise. Unless the order being given is an illegal one, subordinates cannot question or disobey their superiors. What Young was doing not only made sense given the situation, but was authorized by the highest authority in their chain of command himself. There was nothing wrong or "dangerous" about the situation except Wray not liking that she was left out of the loop and automatically assuming the worst. Had she and Scott read all the files SG personnel are supposed to, they would have realized what was going on, too. Just because Young didn't tell them, whatever his reasons, does not give them the right to question the one in charge. Especially when they're only in the dark because they didn't do the required reading.Couldnt agree more, When one of my NCOs in my unit tells me to do something, I do it without questions, I only question when they are unclear or something. This is a military situation and thus Wray should not interfere or always question and demand to do things her way. I'm just surprised Young didnt put her in her place yet.

BadOnion
June 4th, 2010, 07:47 PM
Except:

1. This is a fictional television show and claiming it proves anything about the real world is absurd as claiming "24" proves torture works.

2. Torture did NOT even work in this fictional universe. Telford did not disclose any information while being tortured. He disclosed the information after being killed and revived to erase the alien brainwashing. When this applies in the real world, we can talk about it. Until then, see point #1.

tNsRAoL
June 4th, 2010, 08:01 PM
You can't use fictional situations and apply it to the real world.
Torture is never acceptable in the real world.

Rudy Pena
June 4th, 2010, 08:02 PM
You can't use fictional situations and apply it to the real world.
Torture is never acceptable in the real world.
Depends on which country you live in.......

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 08:04 PM
Except:

1. This is a fictional television show and claiming it proves anything about the real world is absurd as claiming "24" proves torture works.

2. Torture did NOT even work in this fictional universe. Telford did not disclose any information while being tortured. He disclosed the information after being killed and revived to erase the alien brainwashing. When this applies in the real world, we can talk about it. Until then, see point #1.

1. You can use television to make parables to the real world in almost any situation. "24" does prove torture works, anyway; it accurately depicts that soldiers have been known to do to get information... and it accurate depicts that some of those times, it works like a charm.

2. You're missing the point. Young's torture only began when he started venting atmosphere, nothing else he did was anything but interrogation (Telford attacked him, remember). The torture's whole point was to undo the brainwashing, nothing more. Just because the goal wasn't solely to get information doesn't mean it didn't work.


You can't use fictional situations and apply it to the real world.
Torture is never acceptable in the real world.

Yes we can. And yes it can be.

DigiFluid
June 4th, 2010, 08:12 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.
This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

If anything, this episode proved just how useless torture really is. Telford did not break under the duress, and even after he'd apparently come to his senses, he didn't give them enough information to stop the invasion.

So not only did Young commit a monstrous crime, it also produced no tangible results.

Pharaoh Atem
June 4th, 2010, 08:15 PM
maybe destiny has a water boarding room

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 08:25 PM
This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

If anything, this episode proved just how useless torture really is. Telford did not break under the duress, and even after he'd apparently come to his senses, he didn't give them enough information to stop the invasion.

So not only did Young commit a monstrous crime, it also produced no tangible results.

It broke the brainwashing, which was all he was trying to do. Young was never hoping that the "torture" would make him talk, he just wanted to undo the mind-tampering so they'd have Telford back. Weren't you listening later on when Young explained this to Scott?

BadOnion
June 4th, 2010, 08:33 PM
It broke the brainwashing, which was all he was trying to do. Young was never hoping that the "torture" would make him talk, he just wanted to undo the mind-tampering so they'd have Telford back. Weren't you listening later on when Young explained this to Scott?

So you just pretty much broke the premise of this entire topic.

smart
June 4th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Yes, I agree that torture was appropriate. Although Telford was harmed, Young obtained the neccesaary info to prepare for the Lucian Alliance and a devise a defensive plan. Essentially torture can be right in some cases, where the harm of one being can save the lives of many others.Also, his actions were beneficial since by killing and then reviving him , Young was able to get Telford back as himself
and Telford was therefore able to be helpful in a few ways [ i.e making his move, convincing the Lucian Alliance

of TJ'S usefulness].

IMForeman
June 4th, 2010, 09:05 PM
What Young was doing was not torture. He was performing a version of the Jaffa's Rite of Malshuraan. It was done to Teal'c with success in Threshold, we shall see if it was successful here, or if Telford is shammin'.

PG15
June 4th, 2010, 09:06 PM
As far as I'm concerned, with the revelation that Young did what he did because he specifically wanted Telford to die a little bit to break the brainwashing, it can no longer be called torture. It's more like..."treatment" for Telford's condition (of being brainwashed). This in turn renders all of this, and by extention the 30+ pages of debate in that other thread, moot.

s09119
June 4th, 2010, 09:08 PM
As far as I'm concerned, with the revelation that Young did what he did because he specifically wanted Telford to die a little bit to break the brainwashing, it can no longer be called torture. It's more like..."treatment" for Telford's condition (of being brainwashed). This in turn renders all of this, and by extention the 30+ pages of debate in that other thread, moot.

More or less. What he did may be classified as a form of torture, given the method, but it was the only remedy he had on hand.

Kaiphantom
June 4th, 2010, 09:26 PM
I'm going to Godwin this thread, but it needs to be said.

The Nuremburg trials showed that "just following orders" is no excuse. Millions of people were tortured, and the soliders under the command of the big shots who gave those orders, were just as culpable as the commanders.

Torture. Is. Wrong.

And if you carry out an order to torture someone, you are just as guilty.

As PG15 said, what Young did was more like a treatment, but he should have explained that to the people under his command. True, technically Scott should have... but as Sheppard told a different Col Everett in SGA, if he didn't include Weir in things, he'd lose the respect of everyone. There is more to leading then simply barking out orders.

PG15
June 4th, 2010, 09:31 PM
More or less. What he did may be classified as a form of torture, given the method, but it was the only remedy he had on hand.

But that's just it - it's a remedy, not torture. You can't say "torture worked" because it completely skirts the issue (in a rather brilliant way, IMHO - I totally did not see the Rite of Mal'Sharan happening). There was no torture here, not "officially".

I'm not an expert on torture, but as far as I know, torture is basically giving someone physical/mental/emotional trauma until they crack under the pressure and do what you want them to do, in theory. What Young did had nothing to do with that - there was no "cracking under the pressure". It was more like getting a shot for a vaccine or various other painful medical treatments - yeah, it feels pretty uncomfortable, but that's just an unfortunate side effect of the procedure, not its intended effect.

Paladine
June 4th, 2010, 10:16 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Let me guess... You support that torture that our government has been doing down in Guantanamo Bay? Lets turn the tables around and pretend you were captured. Would you then still believe torture is acceptable? If so, you got some major issues brother =)

PG15
June 4th, 2010, 10:17 PM
So not only did Young commit a monstrous crime, it also produced no tangible results.

So then the same can be said of Bra'tac, yes?

It was a very quick Rite of Malsharan, and that's what Young intended. The tangible result is that Telford is back to normal (or so we think, anyway). Young committed no crime, though some can argue (and some already have argued) that he made a mistake in not telling other people about it.

Though, like I said earlier, the first few minutes of this episode rendered most of last week's torture discussions completely pointless, and that's freaking hilarious to me. :p

Doorlocks
June 4th, 2010, 10:29 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Lol, wut? Yeah, I forgot the classic, "Breaking Alien Brainwashing" argument that pro-torture advocates are always invoking at the last minute to win arguments. It's obviously such an ironclad, unassailable scenario that poor anti-torture people like me must repress it so that we can go on in our mistaken, futile ways.

Kastro187420
June 4th, 2010, 10:34 PM
It was a very quick Rite of Malsharan, and that's what Young intended. The tangible result is that Telford is back to normal (or so we think, anyway). Young committed no crime, though some can argue (and some already have argued) that he made a mistake in not telling other people about it.


The difference between what Bra'tac did, and Young did, lies in the information available. Bra'tac KNEW teal'c was brainwashed, and knew it was the only way to bring him back to normal. With Young, he didn't conclusively know that Telford was brainwashed. It was possible, but it wasn't a guarantee.

For all young knew, he could've killed telford, brought him back, and achieved nothing. It was a gamble. He just got lucky was all.

As far as "When is torture right?", I'd say only when you know the person is in possession of the information you're looking for, and only depending on what said information is that you're looking for.

garhkal
June 5th, 2010, 06:39 AM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Just cause it worked out that he was right in that Telford was brainwashed, and therefore bringing him to the brink was the way out, still does not make what he did right in the sense of right and wrong. IF i do evil to combat other evil, i have still done evil..

BUT I WILL NOW make an apology to all those i slammed that he could not know of the right of Mal'sha-ron (or however it is spelled) as both he and Telford seemed to know of it.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 5th, 2010, 08:23 AM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

I agree, Young knew what needed to be done and did it, saving not only the lives of people on Destiny but Telford's life as well (and now that Rush is back in his body, he;s saved Rush too). I expect that this isn't going to matter much, as the problem seemed to be more about Young himself than anything else.

thekillman
June 5th, 2010, 09:14 AM
Young did it for two things:

1: to break the brainwashing, similar to what happened to Teal'c
2: to test his fellow people. including Scott. who clearly didn't trust Young enough.

also telford revealed that he had read about the technique and that it had been applied a few times but he hadn't thought about it.


as to the predictability: predictable for longtime fans, not so for new fans

Major_Griff
June 5th, 2010, 09:36 AM
I was vehemently against the torture in Subversion, but now knowing that Young still thought Telford was under the influence of brainwashing and was trying to Mal'Sharaan him, I think what he did was right. It has nothing to do with the fact that they were able to prepare for the attack. I'm only okay with just because it wasn't torture. He wasn't trying to break him to get information, he was trying to un wash his brain like they did to Teal'c in 'Threshold'.

KEK
June 5th, 2010, 09:40 AM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Uh, he wasn't torturing him though, it was doing the Rite of Malshuraan thingy.

s09119
June 5th, 2010, 10:15 AM
I'm going to Godwin this thread, but it needs to be said.

The Nuremburg trials showed that "just following orders" is no excuse. Millions of people were tortured, and the soliders under the command of the big shots who gave those orders, were just as culpable as the commanders.

Torture. Is. Wrong.

And if you carry out an order to torture someone, you are just as guilty.

As PG15 said, what Young did was more like a treatment, but he should have explained that to the people under his command. True, technically Scott should have... but as Sheppard told a different Col Everett in SGA, if he didn't include Weir in things, he'd lose the respect of everyone. There is more to leading then simply barking out orders.

I disagree, sorry. Even Weir ended up admitting that sometimes, morality needs to take a back seat to survival. And World War II was a completely different scenario and you know it.


Let me guess... You support that torture that our government has been doing down in Guantanamo Bay? Lets turn the tables around and pretend you were captured. Would you then still believe torture is acceptable? If so, you got some major issues brother =)

Thanks for calling me mentally unstable, by the way.

And no, I do not support the things done in Guantanamo. Torture is acceptable when there's no other options and when many innocent lives are at stake. I'm not saying it's a good, wonderful thing or that it should be used all the time, obviously. The point is that, in this case as in some others, it was the right thing to do.


Uh, he wasn't torturing him though, it was doing the Rite of Malshuraan thingy.

True, but his method of enacting the right could still be called torture... as it was two weeks ago when half the forum launched into an anti-Young crusade about it.

blackluster
June 5th, 2010, 11:00 AM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.No, Incursion does nothing to justify torture in any way shape or form. The differences between torture and what Young was trying to do go well beyond semantics. You couldn't label it torture anymore than you could call a doctor administering a lumbar punch as committing an act of torture.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 5th, 2010, 11:06 AM
No, Incursion does nothing to justify torture in any way shape or form. The differences between torture and what Young was trying to do go well beyond semantics. You couldn't label it torture anymore than you could call a doctor administering a lumbar punch as committing an act of torture.
exactly
I may say that my physiotherapist is torturing me but it's really not the same thing

KEK
June 5th, 2010, 11:16 AM
True, but his method of enacting the right could still be called torture... as it was two weeks ago when half the forum launched into an anti-Young crusade about it.

Forced medical procedures can be painful, but I wouldn't call them torture. The forum erupted because we assumed he was torturing Telford for information, but as it turned out, he wasn't.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 5th, 2010, 11:19 AM
Forced medical procedures can be painful, but I wouldn't call them torture. The forum erupted because we assumed he was torturing Telford for information, but as it turned out, he wasn't.

some people, KEK, some people :)
I think some people were just set on believing the worst of the character and this fit. I have to wonder, if it was another character, would there have been the same reaction?

Kaiphantom
June 5th, 2010, 11:21 AM
I disagree, sorry. Even Weir ended up admitting that sometimes, morality needs to take a back seat to survival. And World War II was a completely different scenario and you know it.

Rich Man: "You thief! Have you no morals?"
Thief: "Nope; can't afford 'em."

Yes, when it comes down the wire, people will throw their principles out the window. Bu the Nuremburg trials were important because they established - in a global way, no less! - that people are responsible for their own actions. That "I was just following orders" is no excuse to torture, maim, or commit other despicable acts.

As a general response, I've adjusted my thinking a bit. Young had two goals in mind when he ordered the air out:

#1. If Telford was brainwashed, it was a risky treatment to cure him.
#2. But if it wasn't, it was a very deliberate torture to get him to talk.

Young didn't know which, so he was killing two birds with one stone. If it was torture, he wanted to keep Scott and the others out of it; I still believe he should have given reason #1 as a possibility, though, to at least let them know he wasn't going to kill Telford/Rush.

To further explain my views on torture, I feel it should be illegal, and there should be heavy consequences. But you know what? If I'm in a position where torturing someone will help save lives, I'll do it... and accept the consequences. I will let history be my judge, and perhaps condemn me, but I will submit myself to a jury of my peers and accept their judgment. That is how I believe torture should be handled. Officially wrong and rarely used, but if someone believes it is justifiable in a situation, they should accept all consequences.

Despite what you may see on TV, torture is actually a very poor method of gaining intelligence. Most of the time, you don't know if what someone is telling you under torture is even correct, or if they really don't know everything. On Destiny, we have the benefit of being an objective third person in a clear case of right and wrong. Real life is considerably more gray, and you won't know for sure if someone has information you need.

So Young was carrying an idiot ball by not telling Scott, Greer, and Wray, at least. If he wants to continue in this command, then he needs to man up and respect other people; it's the only way you earn respect yourself.

Major_Griff
June 5th, 2010, 12:07 PM
some people, KEK, some people :)
I think some people were just set on believing the worst of the character and this fit. I have to wonder, if it was another character, would there have been the same reaction?

I was vehemently opposed to the torture until I realized what he was doing this week, and I would have been opposed to it no matter who was doing it. I actually like Young. Along with TJ, Greer, and Rush, he is one of my favorite characters on the show. Though I'll admit there do seem to be certain posters who have it in for certain characters on the show.

garhkal
June 6th, 2010, 03:01 AM
Rich Man: "You thief! Have you no morals?"
Thief: "Nope; can't afford 'em."

I have heard that before.. where from though i cannot remember.

Phenom
June 9th, 2010, 04:16 AM
This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

If anything, this episode proved just how useless torture really is. Telford did not break under the duress, and even after he'd apparently come to his senses, he didn't give them enough information to stop the invasion.

So not only did Young commit a monstrous crime, it also produced no tangible results.

This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

Had Young made the tough call O'Neill suggested he should have and vented the gate room, the torture would have saved the ship. I suggest you probably are against torture no matter how good the results are.

Giantevilhead
June 9th, 2010, 12:10 PM
Torture only works in television and movies where characters have plot armor and the infinitesimal chance of getting good intel out of torture is a guarantee. In real life, it's far more likely that Telford would have given them bad intel, leading Carter to chase a bad lead while ignoring good ones, or worse, putting Carter in danger for no appreciable gain.

I've made this analogy before and I'll do it again here. Torture is like gambling, it can work but the chances of that happening is extremely low. You can spend your retirement fund in Vegas and win $10 million but you're far more likely to end up broke and drown yourself in cocktail sauce at the $1.99 buffet. You can torture people all you want but you'll be lucky if just 1% of what they say can be used. And if you think that torture can work in real life just because it works for Jack Bauer then you must also think that you can get a Royal Flush every time you play poker because James Bond can do it.

s09119
June 9th, 2010, 01:25 PM
Torture only works in television and movies where characters have plot armor and the infinitesimal chance of getting good intel out of torture is a guarantee. In real life, it's far more likely that Telford would have given them bad intel, leading Carter to chase a bad lead while ignoring good ones, or worse, putting Carter in danger for no appreciable gain.

I've made this analogy before and I'll do it again here. Torture is like gambling, it can work but the chances of that happening is extremely low. You can spend your retirement fund in Vegas and win $10 million but you're far more likely to end up broke and drown yourself in cocktail sauce at the $1.99 buffet. You can torture people all you want but you'll be lucky if just 1% of what they say can be used. And if you think that torture can work in real life just because it works for Jack Bauer then you must also think that you can get a Royal Flush every time you play poker because James Bond can do it.

You're severely under-representing the odds of torture providing helpful intelligence. The notion that it only gives something useful <1% of the time is a myth.

Kaiphantom
June 9th, 2010, 02:46 PM
You're severely under-representing the odds of torture providing helpful intelligence. The notion that it only gives something useful <1% of the time is a myth.

Do you have facts to back that up? Evidence?

Because in the real world, you don't even know if the person you're torturing really has info. You grab a "terrorist" and ship him off to gitmo, then waterboard him away. He breaks down crying, saying he doesn't know, but how do you know if he's acting? You keep pushing him, and eventually he gives you information because it's the only way you'll stop. Of course, you find it's false information, so you think he's still hiding something, and continue to torture him.

This is the reality, because you just don't know if someone really has information you need, and you have no way of verifying it until you check it out thoroughly. And he could continue to give you bad info, making you wonder if he has any in the first place.

Rudy Pena
June 9th, 2010, 03:25 PM
Do you have facts to back that up? Evidence?

Because in the real world, you don't even know if the person you're torturing really has info. You grab a "terrorist" and ship him off to gitmo, then waterboard him away. He breaks down crying, saying he doesn't know, but how do you know if he's acting? You keep pushing him, and eventually he gives you information because it's the only way you'll stop. Of course, you find it's false information, so you think he's still hiding something, and continue to torture him.

This is the reality, because you just don't know if someone really has information you need, and you have no way of verifying it until you check it out thoroughly. And he could continue to give you bad info, making you wonder if he has any in the first place.

You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post. ;) :)

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 05:05 AM
s09119,


For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

Venting the air in Telford's compartment, in an effort to break potential brainwashing isn't torture. It's a specific, incredibly unpleasent, procedure done to counteract the LA's brainwashing of Telford. Consider surgery, having someone cut open your body. Outside of the context of attempting to heal an injury that would be torture. In the context of attempting to heal it is not. Therefore, what Young did, in this context, was not torture.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 05:09 AM
Rudy Pena,


You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post. ;) :)

Okay, how many people, not involved in the plantined of IEDs and EFPs were captured and tortured leading to no usable intellegence in the course of these investigations? How much time was lost capturing and torturing these innocent individuals?

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 07:25 AM
s09119,



Venting the air in Telford's compartment, in an effort to break potential brainwashing isn't torture. It's a specific, incredibly unpleasent, procedure done to counteract the LA's brainwashing of Telford. Consider surgery, having someone cut open your body. Outside of the context of attempting to heal an injury that would be torture. In the context of attempting to heal it is not. Therefore, what Young did, in this context, was not torture.

will you take mental green for this?

MattSilver 3k
June 10th, 2010, 07:29 AM
I have a serious torture question.

It's a noun, right?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 07:50 AM
EG,


will you take mental green for this?

Sure.

:)

Rudy Pena
June 10th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Rudy Pena,



Okay, how many people, not involved in the plantined of IEDs and EFPs were captured and tortured leading to no usable intellegence in the course of these investigations? How much time was lost capturing and torturing these innocent individuals?
Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

Kaiphantom
June 10th, 2010, 09:10 AM
Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

So, the US has a 100% accuracy with regards to people who deserve to be tortured. They never make a mistake.

Your faith in the government is greater than any rabid muslim fundamentalists.

Here's my evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

"...the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken."

"...Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials. "

Here's some more fun: http://www.infowars.com/72-of-guantanamo-detainees-innocent/

I think my evidence proves yours is false. Don't read if you don't want to know what's really going on.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Rudy Pena,

No mistakes, ever? Really? As Kai points out above that's an extraordinary claim for which there is much contradictory evidence.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 11:14 AM
Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

Not to knock you, man but that sounds pretty *word redacted by me* to believe that zero innocent people were captured or tortured. If you're saying that because you've captured people they must be guilty, then there's a hell of a bigger problem going on. The two posters after you have posted as well and there's a hell of a lot of evidence out there that contradicts your claims. I know how tempting it is to want to believe you're right and are always doing the right thing but wanting to believe it's true and it being true are not the same thing.

Ukko
June 10th, 2010, 11:22 AM
Rudy Pena,

No mistakes, ever? Really? As Kai points out above that's an extraordinary claim for which there is much contradictory evidence.

He never said no mistakes ever. He said that the paople who were caught and tortured then, were all caught in the act or caught filming the act.
To say that no mistakes have ever been made is stupid, and im pretty sure he doesnt believe that.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 11:31 AM
Ukko,


He never said no mistakes ever. He said that the paople who were caught and tortured then, were all caught in the act or caught filming the act.
To say that no mistakes have ever been made is stupid, and im pretty sure he doesnt believe that.

This is what he said:


Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent.

He said "no people were captured who were innocent". How is that not saying there never any mistakes made? If no one who was captured was innocent that's a 100% rate of capturing the "bad guys".

Even if that is true, however unlikely that may be, it does not justify torture. Participation in one bombing is no guarantee of information regarding other bombings. Suppose this is Bob the bomber's first bombing. He's captured after the bomb goes off. What good does torturing Bob do if the only bombing Bob knew about was the one that was already completed?

Torture is not useful and is always immoral.

Ukko
June 10th, 2010, 11:36 AM
Ukko,



This is what he said:



He said "no people were captured who were innocent". How is that not saying there never any mistakes made? If no one who was captured was innocent that's a 100% rate of capturing the "bad guys".

Even if that is true, however unlikely that may be, it does not justify torture. Participation in one bombing is no guarantee of information regarding other bombings. Suppose this is Bob the bomber's first bombing. He's captured after the bomb goes off. What good does torturing Bob do if the only bombing Bob knew about was the one that was already completed?

Torture is not useful and is always immoral.

Because he was refearing to the time he mentiond in this post.

You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post. ;) :)

Not All the time.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Ukko,

Accepting your analysis of Rudy Pena's post as true it doesn't change the fact that torturing someone who has no useful information is a complete waste of time and immoral to boot.

Lahela
June 10th, 2010, 12:19 PM
I have a serious torture question.

It's a noun, right?

It's both a noun and a verb. :)

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 12:21 PM
Ukko,

Accepting your analysis of Rudy Pena's post as true it doesn't change the fact that torturing someone who has no useful information is a complete waste of time and immoral to boot.

If we go back to realize that we're on a sci-fi forum discussing stuff that happens in a show, it changes a couple things.

Young said something to Jack and Daniel, and you could see that Jack knew it was true. When people wrote the rules and the laws, they had no idea that this kind of situation would happen.

A lot of morals are dictated by law. I'm sure a lot of people would suddenly think torture should be used in the right way, if they knew their entire planet was threatened on a daily basis. You have to ask yourself if you being moral is worth the cost, sometimes. I'm of the school of thought that sometimes, going beyond the law is necessary, and obviously most governments agree since they all have covert operations units to do all the dirty work like assassinations and torture.

It's terribly hard to fight utter evil by being perfectly good. The evil people will cheat, cross and lie to get their way. If we're all nice and gentle, we're screwed. So if we don't get dirty sometimes, we'd stand no chance.

Kaiphantom
June 10th, 2010, 01:20 PM
When people wrote the rules and the laws, they had no idea that this kind of situation would happen.

Part of why I love sci-fi is because it can address things we don't come up against in real life; new moral dilemmas. But you have to see the other side of the coin: an SGA episode called "Critical Mass." There, things were pushed to the limit, lives were at stake, and their "gut feeling" was that this one guy was the traitor/spy, and they needed a code. Weir authorized Ronan to torture the code out of him.

And they were wrong; it was someone else.

What do you do? Could you live with yourself knowing you tortured an innocent person? Do you just say "Oh well, that's life, just doin' what I thought was right"?

We have rules and ethics in place for a damn good reason. On a logical basis, that is why torture is bad, because you never know if the person you are torturing knows the information you need. And thus, as a rule, you will end up torturing more innocent people than guilty. And of course, will you have the balls to undergo the torture yourself, so you know what you are putting your victims through? Most people who advocate torture, will chicken out themselves.


It's terribly hard to fight utter evil by being perfectly good. The evil people will cheat, cross and lie to get their way. If we're all nice and gentle, we're screwed. So if we don't get dirty sometimes, we'd stand no chance.

Yes and no. It's one way to go, but you have to understand the bigger picture and your principles: Do you have to destroy the village in order to save it? Do you sacrifice what you are fighting for, in order to win? If you use the same tactics as those you fight, are you any better?

It's a line you have to be real careful about crossing, otherwise you're no better.

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 01:25 PM
Part of why I love sci-fi is because it can address things we don't come up against in real life; new moral dilemmas. But you have to see the other side of the coin: an SGA episode called "Critical Mass." There, things were pushed to the limit, lives were at stake, and their "gut feeling" was that this one guy was the traitor/spy, and they needed a code. Weir authorized Ronan to torture the code out of him.

And they were wrong; it was someone else.

What do you do? Could you live with yourself knowing you tortured an innocent person? Do you just say "Oh well, that's life, just doin' what I thought was right"?

We have rules and ethics in place for a damn good reason. On a logical basis, that is why torture is bad, because you never know if the person you are torturing knows the information you need. And thus, as a rule, you will end up torturing more innocent people than guilty. And of course, will you have the balls to undergo the torture yourself, so you know what you are putting your victims through? Most people who advocate torture, will chicken out themselves.



Yes and no. It's one way to go, but you have to understand the bigger picture and your principles: Do you have to destroy the village in order to save it? Do you sacrifice what you are fighting for, in order to win? If you use the same tactics as those you fight, are you any better?

It's a line you have to be real careful about crossing, otherwise you're no better.

It's not about the person torturing, or the person being tortured. It's about the lives that are in danger. To save lives, I would without hesitation do something I would later have a hard time living with. Some people have to sacrifice and compromise and sometimes die so that others can live and be free. It's always been this way.

Rudy Pena
June 10th, 2010, 01:38 PM
Rudy Pena,



Okay, how many people, not involved in the plantined of IEDs and EFPs were captured and tortured leading to no usable intellegence in the course of these investigations? How much time was lost capturing and torturing these innocent individuals?


So, the US has a 100% accuracy with regards to people who deserve to be tortured. They never make a mistake.

Your faith in the government is greater than any rabid muslim fundamentalists.

Here's my evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

"...the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken."

"...Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials. "

Here's some more fun: http://www.infowars.com/72-of-guantanamo-detainees-innocent/

I think my evidence proves yours is false. Don't read if you don't want to know what's really going on.


Rudy Pena,

No mistakes, ever? Really? As Kai points out above that's an extraordinary claim for which there is much contradictory evidence.


Ukko,



This is what he said:



He said "no people were captured who were innocent". How is that not saying there never any mistakes made? If no one who was captured was innocent that's a 100% rate of capturing the "bad guys".

Even if that is true, however unlikely that may be, it does not justify torture. Participation in one bombing is no guarantee of information regarding other bombings. Suppose this is Bob the bomber's first bombing. He's captured after the bomb goes off. What good does torturing Bob do if the only bombing Bob knew about was the one that was already completed?

Torture is not useful and is always immoral.If you guys and girls all see SSAE said, as what highlighted and underlined. Thats what I replied to not anything more than what he(or she) asked.

And as I answered with that people who were caught in the act or video taping them when the IEDs and EFPs went off. Thus them being guilty and what not. He(she) asked about people who were caught and tortured for video taping or caught in the act of placing the IED in or on the road or side of the road.

So you guys can back off me, as I was only asnwering the he(she) asked, nothing more. If you guys read the post and not into the post you guys and girls would see that I replied back to what was asked of me. Nothing more, nothing less!!!!


And I am not denying the torture of others who may or may not be innocent.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 02:09 PM
Demerzel,


It's not about the person torturing, or the person being tortured. It's about the lives that are in danger. To save lives, I would without hesitation do something I would later have a hard time living with. Some people have to sacrifice and compromise and sometimes die so that others can live and be free. It's always been this way.

That's lovely. I still question the utility of torture. It's quite good at getting the person being tortured to tell the interrogator what the interrogator wants to hear. Given enough pain just about anyone will say just about anything to make it stop. However, it's not clear that the information obtained will be of any use. Therefore unless you already know what the person is going to say what is the point of torturing them for the information you already know?

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 02:11 PM
Demerzel,



That's lovely. I still question the utility of torture. It's quite good at getting the person being tortured to tell the interrogator what the interrogator wants to hear. Given enough pain just about anyone will say just about anything to make it stop. However, it's not clear that the information obtained will be of any use. Therefore unless you already know what the person is going to say what is the point of torturing them for the information you already know?

I was going to reply to your question, then I realized there's no point. Just reading it fried some of my brain cells.

Kaiphantom
June 10th, 2010, 03:28 PM
It's not about the person torturing, or the person being tortured. It's about the lives that are in danger. To save lives, I would without hesitation do something I would later have a hard time living with. Some people have to sacrifice and compromise and sometimes die so that others can live and be free. It's always been this way.

So you support the torture of innocent people? Would you like to shout that in the streets? That you like to maim, disfigure, and cause pain to innocent people. And you're doing this for their own good!

Satlin murdered millions of his own people, but it was for their own good, too.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 03:32 PM
*ponders whether there is a Stalin version for Godwin's Law*......

magictrick
June 10th, 2010, 03:36 PM
I wouldn't call it right. I think a better label would be necessary. If numerous lives can undoubtedly be saved by employing it, then it can be justified.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 03:37 PM
Demerzel,


I was going to reply to your question, then I realized there's no point. Just reading it fried some of my brain cells.

Sorry, that last sentence was poorly phrased. What I was trying to say is if you already know X why torture someone for the same information you already have? Surely confirmation isn't that important, particularly in the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. Follow up on the information don't waste time, you don't have, confirming it.

Magictrick,


I wouldn't call it right. I think a better label would be necessary. If numerous lives can undoubtedly be saved by employing it, then it can be justified.

That's a big "if" particularly if you don't know if you have the right person or if you don't know if the information you've been given is a lie to throw you off the scent or a lie to get you to stop hurting them. Torture is of extremely limited utility unless you are trying to beat a confession out of someone.

rlr149
June 10th, 2010, 03:47 PM
Given enough pain just about anyone will say just about anything to make it stop. anything also includes the truth/information required.

no guarantee ofc but name one thing that is guaranteed................. besides death and taxes

wargrafix
June 10th, 2010, 03:53 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

what a pathetically flimsy reasoning for it/

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 04:05 PM
rlr,

Sure it includes "the truth" but how do you tell the difference between the turth you need and the lie told to make the pain stop or to deceive?

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 04:23 PM
Demerzel,



Sorry, that last sentence was poorly phrased. What I was trying to say is if you already know X why torture someone for the same information you already have? Surely confirmation isn't that important, particularly in the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. Follow up on the information don't waste time, you don't have, confirming it.

Magictrick,



That's a big "if" particularly if you don't know if you have the right person or if you don't know if the information you've been given is a lie to throw you off the scent or a lie to get you to stop hurting them. Torture is of extremely limited utility unless you are trying to beat a confession out of someone.

Still doesn't make sense. Why do you assume we already know the information we're considering using torture to get? You're not making sense.

If you caught a terrorist, and you KNOW, for a fact, that he has planted a bomb in the city. He admits it. Laughs in your face when you ask him where it is. Says you'll never find it. Oh and that you are all pigs that deserve to die, just to add salt to the wound.

How much does knowing there's a bomb in the city help you? That information is worth nil if you don't know WHERE it is. That's when good ole waterboarding comes in. It's not like covert operatives grab random people off the street hoping that under torture, they'll reveal something they want to hear. Like in everything else, there's a risk of error or failure for a variety of reasons, but it is still a viable option in extreme situations when time lost means lives sacrificed.

People can say what they want and say that torture always fails or that ticking bomb scenarios never or rarely happen. The day the Department of State and the DOD declassify all SOD and 1st SFOD-D files having to do with counter-terrorism, then maybe we'll know what truly goes on that is never known by the common mortals of this world. The government won't even say on record how many operatives are in Delta Force. You think they'll say -anything- about the success or lack thereof, of torture to obtain critical information?

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 04:32 PM
Still doesn't make sense. Why do you assume we already know the information we're considering using torture to get? You're not making sense.

If you caught a terrorist, and you KNOW, for a fact, that he has planted a bomb in the city. He admits it. Laughs in your face when you ask him where it is. Says you'll never find it. Oh and that you are all pigs that deserve to die, just to add salt to the wound.

How much does knowing there's a bomb in the city help you? That information is worth nil if you don't know WHERE it is. That's when good ole waterboarding comes in. It's not like covert operatives grab random people off the street hoping that under torture, they'll reveal something they want to hear. Like in everything else, there's a risk of error or failure for a variety of reasons, but it is still a viable option in extreme situations when time lost means lives sacrificed.

People can say what they want and say that torture always fails or that ticking bomb scenarios never or rarely happen. The day the Department of State and the DOD declassify all SOD and 1st SFOD-D files having to do with counter-terrorism, then maybe we'll know what truly goes on that is never known by the common mortals of this world. The government won't even say on record how many operatives are in Delta Force. You think they'll say -anything- about the success or lack thereof, of torture to obtain critical information?

okay, first of all, how do you know he's planted a bomb in the city?
If you know, is it because you've been investigating him already and so likely have a way, other than torture, to get that information. In other words, you already KNOW. No one here has claimed that torture always fails. What has been claimed is that it's unreliable, especially in the fabled ticking time bomb scenario. It fails ENOUGH for it not to be considered a reliable method when you NEED it to be a reliable method. When there are more reliable methods.

KEK
June 10th, 2010, 04:40 PM
This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

Had Young made the tough call O'Neill suggested he should have and vented the gate room, the torture would have saved the ship. I suggest you probably are against torture no matter how good the results are.

Uh, that isn't torture.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 04:42 PM
Uh, that isn't torture.

nope, that's plain old garden variety killing
it's not like he's incapacitating them and then running in to poke them with sharp sticks or anything :D

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 04:45 PM
nope, that's plain old garden variety killing
it's not like he's incapacitating them and then running in to poke them with sharp sticks or anything :D

Haha! Okay, so lemme get this straight.

If I suffocate a man while watching him and asking him for information, BUT, I let him die from suffocation, it's good old killing. But if I don't kill him, and only suffocate him, then it's torture and ZOMG it's uber wrong and unreliable. But killing, pfft! It's just a murder. It's cool, it's cool.

NavyGater
June 10th, 2010, 05:18 PM
Young did what needed to be done and done then ... if he had told everyone his plan they would have wanted to talk about it and it would have divided the crew at a time when he needed everyone working togeather and following orders... he is a military man and he did it the way that got the job done! I wish there were more men like Young in charge.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 10th, 2010, 05:23 PM
Young did what needed to be done and done then ... if he had told everyone his plan they would have wanted to talk about it and it would have divided the crew at a time when he needed everyone working togeather and following orders... he is a military man and he did it the way that got the job done! I wish there were more men like Young in charge.

I agree. It wasn't a time to start having a committee about what to do

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 07:12 PM
Demerzel,


Still doesn't make sense. Why do you assume we already know the information we're considering using torture to get? You're not making sense.

If you caught a terrorist, and you KNOW, for a fact, that he has planted a bomb in the city. He admits it. Laughs in your face when you ask him where it is. Says you'll never find it. Oh and that you are all pigs that deserve to die, just to add salt to the wound.

How much does knowing there's a bomb in the city help you? That information is worth nil if you don't know WHERE it is. That's when good ole waterboarding comes in. It's not like covert operatives grab random people off the street hoping that under torture, they'll reveal something they want to hear. Like in everything else, there's a risk of error or failure for a variety of reasons, but it is still a viable option in extreme situations when time lost means lives sacrificed.

People can say what they want and say that torture always fails or that ticking bomb scenarios never or rarely happen. The day the Department of State and the DOD declassify all SOD and 1st SFOD-D files having to do with counter-terrorism, then maybe we'll know what truly goes on that is never known by the common mortals of this world. The government won't even say on record how many operatives are in Delta Force. You think they'll say -anything- about the success or lack thereof, of torture to obtain critical information?

Okay, a terrorist has planted a bomb in a city. Presumably the terrorist wants it to go off. How does the interrogator know whether the information they gleen from torture has any truth to it? How do they know the terrorist isn't lieing to stop the pain or lieing to misdirect the search? They don't. As I have maintained from the get go torture is good at getting the person being tortured to say what the interrogator wants to hear, not at getting the information the interrogator needs. At the end of the day they've tortured someone to get information that has every likelihood of being inaccurate and actually slowing down what needs to be an expedited operation.

Torture has no utility.

wargrafix
June 10th, 2010, 07:16 PM
Torture is only right, when whips and chains are involved...wait, the is SGU, not True Blood. My bad.

:-P

Demerzel
June 10th, 2010, 07:28 PM
Demerzel,



Okay, a terrorist has planted a bomb in a city. Presumably the terrorist wants it to go off. How does the interrogator know whether the information they gleen from torture has any truth to it? How do they know the terrorist isn't lieing to stop the pain or lieing to misdirect the search? They don't. As I have maintained from the get go torture is good at getting the person being tortured to say what the interrogator wants to hear, not at getting the information the interrogator needs. At the end of the day they've tortured someone to get information that has every likelihood of being inaccurate and actually slowing down what needs to be an expedited operation.

Torture has no utility.

Your logic is faulty and you're too stuck in your opinion. I suggest you enlist and go defend the country you live in. Get out of your house and go see for yourself how it is out there. I used to be an idealist before I served two years in the Canadian army. Then I saw what it was all about, and I realized that until you serve and risk your life instead of just talking and doing nothing, you can't possibly understand.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 10th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Demerzel,


Your logic is faulty and you're too stuck in your opinion. I suggest you enlist and go defend the country you live in. Get out of your house and go see for yourself how it is out there. I used to be an idealist before I served two years in the Canadian army. Then I saw what it was all about, and I realized that until you serve and risk your life instead of just talking and doing nothing, you can't possibly understand.

How is my logic faulty?

I understand that in desperate situations people will attempt desperate measures. Desperation doesn't increase the utility of the actions attempted. There was a great article in the Atlantic several years back. It was about the interrogation techniques used by the U.S. during the war in the Pacific. They didn't torture the Japanese soldier, airmen, and sailors they captured. They attempted to befriend them. Most of the information garnered wasn't wrung from them under a hot lamp but shared by these men in casual moments talking about home and what they did before they were captured.

As I've said, torture doesn't work as we need it to work.

Deevil
June 10th, 2010, 08:04 PM
For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

What did the torture assist in exactly? Young had no Earthly way to know that Telford was brainwashed, suspecting so doesn't justify his actions (I also think it was a total cop-out. Would have been a much stronger choice is Telford was a traitor by choice), and furthermore Young didn't even suspect their was an attack on its way to Destiny.

In the end, it may have worked out to his advantage (and it once again was a cop-out) - but he didn't have enough information to rationalise his actions.

fmbchris
June 10th, 2010, 08:07 PM
my girl loves to torture me....yes torture is always right

Skydiver
June 10th, 2010, 08:10 PM
Folks

as you debate this highly contentious issue, let's remember the 'respect others' rules of the forum. Passions may run high, but there's no need to be rude or personally bait people.

Ukko
June 11th, 2010, 02:07 AM
So you support the torture of innocent people? Would you like to shout that in the streets? That you like to maim, disfigure, and cause pain to innocent people. And you're doing this for their own good!

Satlin murdered millions of his own people, but it was for their own good, too.

I dont think anyone on here (In support of torture or otherwise) has said they would like or enjoy harming innocent people, just that, if innocent lives were at risk they woulkd do all they could to to prevent their deaths. The individual, myself included, would be willing to risk having innocent blood on their hands and live with that for the rest of their (My) life if there was even the slightest possibility that more innocents would be saved. No fun, no enjoyment, no delight in the harming of innocents.

No i wouldnt shout that in the streets. But, i also wouldnt shout "Chocolate Fudge Banana Fridge" in the middle of the street.:p

MattSilver 3k
June 11th, 2010, 02:59 AM
It's both a noun and a verb. :)

Mind = blown. :P

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 03:30 AM
Ukko,


I dont think anyone on here (In support of torture or otherwise) has said they would like or enjoy harming innocent people, just that, if innocent lives were at risk they woulkd do all they could to to prevent their deaths. The individual, myself included, would be willing to risk having innocent blood on their hands and live with that for the rest of their (My) life if there was even the slightest possibility that more innocents would be saved. No fun, no enjoyment, no delight in the harming of innocents.

No i wouldnt shout that in the streets. But, i also wouldnt shout "Chocolate Fudge Banana Fridge" in the middle of the street.:p

Here's another big problem with Torture. 99% of the time willingness to torture is coupled with the "ticking time bomb" scenario. It presumes that people in pain are going to be more likely to tell the truth to the interrogator than people who aren't in pain. That isn't the case.

Torture simply makes the person being tortured willing to say what the interrogator wants to make the pain stop. Yes, that sometimes includes "the truth". However, the problem, particularly when innocents are involved is that the interrogator can't tell truth from fiction based upon looking into the person being tortured's eyes. When the innocent person lies to get the pain to stop whoever is holding them is going to have to waste time confirming what they've learned. Then when they confirm the lie they have to waste more time deciding why the person being tortured is lieing, to stop the pain or because they really don't know. Torture gums up the works with bad information. Thus, with the TTBS torture makes little or no sense to use because torture promotes lies rather than garnering good intellegence.

Lahela
June 11th, 2010, 04:12 AM
Mind = blown. :P

:lol:

Artemis-Neith
June 11th, 2010, 05:24 AM
Torture. Is. Never. Right. And in RL there is a very good reason why it is forbidden in civilised nations.

If people use torture to get whatever informations they want (outside a TV show), sometimes they really get those informations - if they're lucky - but very often it fails. And the torturer can never be sure what information is true, or false.

TV shows are not real life. In our very case, we see - twice - that torture is used to get informations, and accordingly to turn a brainwashed person. It worked, of course, because it is written that way. There is no logic explanation that torture in this two cases has to work. It worked with Rush, because he's not trained to resist torture, so this case is comprehensible. But with Telford in the wrong body, it should have failed, but - of course - it has to work to tell the story that way it is told.

I think, with this discussion, all of us should never forget, that we're talking about a TV show.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 05:43 AM
Torture. Is. Never. Right. And in RL there is a very good reason why it is forbidden in civilised nations.

If people use torture to get whatever informations they want (outside a TV show), sometimes they really get those informations - if they're lucky - but very often it fails. And the torturer can never be sure what information is true, or false.

TV shows are not real life. In our very case, we see - twice - that torture is used to get informations, and accordingly to turn a brainwashed person. It worked, of course, because it is written that way. There is no logic explanation that torture in this two cases has to work. It worked with Rush, because he's not trained to resist torture, so this case is comprehensible. But with Telford in the wrong body, it should have failed, but - of course - it has to work to tell the story that way it is told.

I think, with this discussion, all of us should never forget, that we're talking about a TV show.

It is indeed a TV show. I can tell you for sure, that real life is just as ugly and complicated sometimes when it comes to war and war on terrorism. And you say torture is forbidden in civilized nations. I can assure you, every major nation on this earth have at least one group specialized in doing illegal things for the greater good. That's what Black ops and the like are for, and that's why people like you will never hear about it. Some people don't understand what it takes to protect a country that half the world hates, and most people don't have what it takes to do what's necessary. That's why you're sitting comfortably in front of your computer while others are protecting your way of life and your freedom.

To me, there's worse things than torture, in war. I would live MUCH better with having to hurt some guy with no respect for the lives of innocent and free people, than having to shoot a kid because he's hooked on drugs and pointing an AK-47 at me and it's my life or his.

Nothing in life is absolute. It's people who are unable to compromise and do that's needed that in the end cost people's lives by their inaction.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 05:44 AM
I dont think anyone on here (In support of torture or otherwise) has said they would like or enjoy harming innocent people, just that, if innocent lives were at risk they woulkd do all they could to to prevent their deaths. The individual, myself included, would be willing to risk having innocent blood on their hands and live with that for the rest of their (My) life if there was even the slightest possibility that more innocents would be saved. No fun, no enjoyment, no delight in the harming of innocents.

No i wouldnt shout that in the streets. But, i also wouldnt shout "Chocolate Fudge Banana Fridge" in the middle of the street.:p

That's exactly how I feel and what I meant. Well said, green for you.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 05:58 AM
Demerzel,

Could you please explain how, as you said, my logic is faulty and torture is useful in consistently obtaining actionable intellegence and is not an act of desperation done when the interrogaters can't come up with any better ideas?

Artemis-Neith
June 11th, 2010, 06:06 AM
It is indeed a TV show. I can tell you for sure, that real life is just as ugly and complicated sometimes when it comes to war and war on terrorism. And you say torture is forbidden in civilized nations. I can assure you, every major nation on this earth have at least one group specialized in doing illegal things for the greater good. That's what Black ops and the like are for, and that's why people like you will never hear about it. Some people don't understand what it takes to protect a country that half the world hates, and most people don't have what it takes to do what's necessary. That's why you're sitting comfortably in front of your computer while others are protecting your way of life and your freedom.

To me, there's worse things than torture, in war. I would live MUCH better with having to hurt some guy with no respect for the lives of innocent and free people, than having to shoot a kid because he's hooked on drugs and pointing an AK-47 at me and it's my life or his.

Nothing in life is absolute. It's people who are unable to compromise and do that's needed that in the end cost people's lives by their inaction.

Well, as you, I live in this world, and I'm sitting in this very moment on my computer, as you do, and of course I know that torture exists in civilised nations, and that it is used under special circumstances. But, it is forbidden, and it should be forbidden, and that is a good thing. Only under this strict law a civilised nation is able to keep this interrogation method as rare as possible, also to protect their own people. Really, I feel better if I know that not every single policeman, or any soldier is allowed to use torture to act as one thinks best. Because this happens if torture is allowed by law. Really, would you prefer to live in a nation, where torture is not restricted? Those nations exists in this world, and I don't want to live there.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 06:16 AM
Well, as you, I live in this world, and I'm sitting in this very moment on my computer, as you do, and of course I know that torture exists in civilised nations, and that it is used under special circumstances. But, it is forbidden, and it should be forbidden, and that is a good thing. Only under this strict law a civilised nation is able to keep this interrogation method as rare as possible, also to protect their own people. Really, I feel better if I know that not every single policeman, or any soldier is allowed to use torture to act as one thinks best. Because this happens if torture is allowed by law. Really, would you prefer to live in a nation, where torture is not restricted? Those nations exists in this world, and I don't want to live there.

I don't know for you. But I served my country, I was in the army for two years. So while now yes, I am here, I actually went and saw how it was for myself and it changed my life and my way of seeing the world.

And of course I wouldn't live in a country where torture is freely used. Of course I am glad only a very small number of operatives within the government are allowed to do these things. My point all along has never been that torture is a beautifully effective method that should be used all the time. It is simply that it has its place sometimes, and its uses. It's not perfect, it's not right. A lot of good men did questionable things for the greater good. One would argue that Truman shouldn't have ordered the nuclear attack on Japan. A lot of people were killed, innocent people. A lot more would have died, Americans, had he not done what he did.

Torture may not work, a lot of the times. But if the times it works, it saves lives, then in my opinion it's damn well worth it.

Artemis-Neith
June 11th, 2010, 06:27 AM
I don't know for you. But I served my country, I was in the army for two years. So while now yes, I am here, I actually went and saw how it was for myself and it changed my life and my way of seeing the world.

And of course I wouldn't live in a country where torture is freely used. Of course I am glad only a very small number of operatives within the government are allowed to do these things. My point all along has never been that torture is a beautifully effective method that should be used all the time. It is simply that it has its place sometimes, and its uses. It's not perfect, it's not right. A lot of good men did questionable things for the greater good. One would argue that Truman shouldn't have ordered the nuclear attack on Japan. A lot of people were killed, innocent people. A lot more would have died, Americans, had he not done what he did.

Torture may not work, a lot of the times. But if the times it works, it saves lives, then in my opinion it's damn well worth it.

I'm a woman, and for that I was not allowed to think about going to the army 20 years ago, it was not possible. I think, I understand you now, and I agree with you in this point. Torture should be as limited as possible, and sometimes there might be no other way, but that don't make it a right thing, it makes it a last desperate option.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 06:37 AM
I'm a woman, and for that I was not allowed to think about going to the army 20 years ago, it was not possible. I think, I understand you now, and I agree with you in this point. Torture should be as limited as possible, and sometimes there might be no other way, but that don't make it a right thing, it makes it a last desperate option.

Absolutely. One problem I think is that some people think that those of us who admit that torture is sometimes useful, believe it's a method that should be used right away, or often. To me, torture is something you try when NOTHING else has worked. I am 100% sure that those covert operatives who someday have to do such a thing, will have tried about everything else before resorting to that.

While I don't see what Young did as pure torture, he still tried other methods before having to go to the extreme and "kill" Telford to break the brainwash. Besides, while I believe that officers shouldn't blindly follow orders that may be wrong, O'Neill did authorize Young to do anything that was necessary. Considering who Jack is, what he has seen, and what he knows, I'm sure few people would take such an order likely without thinking about the reasons behind such an order. Someone has to make the tough calls. It's not called "burden of command" for no reason. It's a burden. And ordering someone's torture has to be a pretty tough call, considering the superior officer likely won't do it themselves.

I'm sure it goes this way in real life, as well.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 06:47 AM
Deremzel,


Absolutely. One problem I think is that some people think that those of us who admit that torture is sometimes useful, believe it's a method that should be used right away, or often. To me, torture is something you try when NOTHING else has worked. I am 100% sure that those covert operatives who someday have to do such a thing, will have tried about everything else before resorting to that.

With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence?

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:00 AM
Deremzel,



With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence?

I don't think there's any point to what you're saying. We could push that scenario in any way we want. We don't know what SOD operatives or Delta operatives have for guidelines in those situations. And for myself, I think it's useless to even try to think about that. We cannot imagine how such a situation is like, in real life.

Now for the sake of the topic, I get that you're 100% against it and think it should never be used. But you don't have to try to make it sound even worse by asking if torturing a guy, his family, his family's families, his whole city block, why not his whole country, for information, is alright.

We're getting into semantics.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:17 AM
Demerzel,


I don't think there's any point to what you're saying. We could push that scenario in any way we want. We don't know what SOD operatives or Delta operatives have for guidelines in those situations. And for myself, I think it's useless to even try to think about that. We cannot imagine how such a situation is like, in real life.

Now for the sake of the topic, I get that you're 100% against it and think it should never be used. But you don't have to try to make it sound even worse by asking if torturing a guy, his family, his family's families, his whole city block, why not his whole country, for information, is alright.

We're getting into semantics.

I disagree. This is not about semantics. It's about what lines you think it is okay to cross in the name of saving "innocent lives." If you are willing to allow innocents to be tortured to save other innocents I would find that rather ironic given that the justification for the torture of innocents is the protection of innocent lives.

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 07:17 AM
Deremzel,



With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence?

yes, why not? The end justifies the means.If this is the only way how to save other people, it's not a big problem.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:18 AM
g.o.d,


yes, why not? The end justifies the means.If this is the only way how to save other people, it's not a big problem.

So, torture innocents to protect innocent lives? No irony there.

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 07:20 AM
g.o.d,



So, torture innocents to protect innocent lives? No irony there.

yes

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:22 AM
g.o.d.,


yes

So you had to kill the villagers to save them? How about killing innocent members of the captive's family, one at a time, to get them to give you the information you need. Are you cool with that even if they know nothing about the plot? What if there is some question about whether the captive is involved. Should innocents be tortured to make sure he doesn't have information?

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 07:26 AM
g.o.d.,



So you had to kill the villagers to save them?

ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:26 AM
Demerzel,



I disagree. This is not about semantics. It's about what lines you think it is okay to cross in the name of saving "innocent lives." If you are willing to allow innocents to be tortured to save other innocents I would find that rather ironic given that the justification for the torture of innocents is the protection of innocent lives.

How do you know the person being tortured is innocent? Why did you assume we knew the information beforehand? If we did, torture wouldn't be needed. We're talking about terrorists here. Not the use of torture on a victim that may or may not be guilty. That was never the point. Once more, considering the US government only recruits its very best and elite operatives for the few units that could come across those situations, I trust they'd know the right thing to do. Not the moral thing. The right thing.

Asking ME that question is not a good idea. I am pro atomic bomb, pro death penalty, and if you asked me, terrorists would have no right whatsoever, they'd have less rights than my cat. I am not officer material, nor am I the most moral person ever. So if needed, I'd go pretty darn far. Good thing I'll never be in that kind of situation or have that kind of authority.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:29 AM
ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it.

I can so imagine what Ser Scot's answer to that will be.

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 07:31 AM
I can so imagine what Ser Scot's answer to that will be.

yeah, me too :D

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:36 AM
Demerzel,


How do you know the person being tortured is innocent? Why did you assume we knew the information beforehand? If we did, torture wouldn't be needed. We're talking about terrorists here. Not the use of torture on a victim that may or may not be guilty. That was never the point. Once more, considering the US government only recruits its very best and elite operatives for the few units that could come across those situations, I trust they'd know the right thing to do. Not the moral thing. The right thing.

Argument to authority. Wonderful fallacy. Look you are presuming they've got the right guy. I'm saying that is never certian. To make the presumption they have the right guy is absurd. You have to assume they will make mistakes, even experts are human, that such mistakes will result in innocents being tortured and possibly polluting the intellegence gathered with bad information.

Torture does not work to get intellegence. It works to get the person being tortured to say what the interrogator wants them to say. There is no way to know, without knowing what this person knows beforehand, that the person being tortured isn't lieing for a variety of reasons. Hence my position that torture is of no value as a means to gather intellegence.


Asking ME that question is not a good idea. I am pro atomic bomb, pro death penalty, and if you asked me, terrorists would have no right whatsoever, they'd have less rights than my cat. I am not officer material, nor am I the most moral person ever. So if needed, I'd go pretty darn far. Good thing I'll never be in that kind of situation or have that kind of authority.

Either we all have rights or they can be taken away at the whim of Government. Hence, I believe terrorists do have rights.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:37 AM
g.o.d.,


ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it.

So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent?

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 07:44 AM
g.o.d.,



So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent?

if only I could green you for that...offers cookies http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d23/XXXevilgrinXXX/cookie.gif

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:44 AM
g.o.d.,



So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent?

I'm going to stop debating with someone who thinks the lives of terrorists are worth more than those they are trying to kill. I'm done answering your posts before I get downright rude.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:46 AM
Pacifist socialists unite. You guys can all hold hands, sing songs and hug trees while the bad guys destroy civilization and everything you hold dear. I'm sure it'll convince them to stop. =)

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 07:47 AM
g.o.d.,



So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent?

what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:49 AM
Demerzel,


I'm going to stop debating with someone who thinks the lives of terrorists are worth more than those they are trying to kill. I'm done answering your posts before I get downright rude.

We aren't talking about terrorists anymore. We're talking about innocent family members of terrorists. Additionally, you can't know, with certianty, a terrorist has the information you want to torture them to obtain. Therefore, why torture in the first place. It is a waste of time.

[eta]

Being against torture does not mean I'm a pacifist. My whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral.

g.o.d.


what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

Not everyone who is Somalian or Arab is a terrorist. There are innocents among them. The family members of terrorists don't share their guilt by being members of that family. I'm saying if you value innocent life then being willing to torture innocents because of who's family they happen to belong to is extremely contradictory.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:54 AM
what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

I can't green you, but I'll say that while most people would never admit what you just said, I'm sure a lot of people would quietly agree. I certainly value the lives of my family and friends more than some random foreign family. And hell, I'm not even a patriot in any way. But ever since my best friend lost her uncle in the WTC tragedy and then watched her sink deeply into depression and worse, and after serving in the army, I have ZERO tolerance or pity for terrorists and what happens to them when they get caught. They attack our freedom and OUR rights. Why should we give them any rights whatsoever? We know laws protect criminals who don't care about those laws. And while that might be moral, its WRONG. That's why the world, with all its laws, is going straight to hell and everything is going worse and worse every single day.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 07:57 AM
Demerzel,


I can't green you, but I'll say that while most people would never admit what you just said, I'm sure a lot of people would quietly agree. I certainly value the lives of my family and friends more than some random foreign family. And hell, I'm not even a patriot in any way. But ever since my best friend lost her uncle in the WTC tragedy and then watched her sink deeply into depression and worse, and after serving in the army, I have ZERO tolerance or pity for terrorists and what happens to them when they get caught. They attack our freedom and OUR rights. Why should we give them any rights whatsoever? We know laws protect criminals who don't care about those laws. And while that might be moral, its WRONG. That's why the world, with all its laws, is going straight to hell and everything is going worse and worse every single day.

So, if you are accused of being a terrorist you should lose your rights and be subject to torture?

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 07:58 AM
Demerzel,



We aren't talking about terrorists anymore. We're talking about innocent family members of terrorists. Additionally, you can't know, with certianty, a terrorist has the information you want to torture them to obtain. Therefore, why torture in the first place. It is a waste of time.

[eta]

Being against torture does not mean I'm a pacifist. My whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral.

g.o.d.



Not everyone who is Somalian or Arab is a terrorist. There are innocents among them. The family members of terrorists don't share their guilt by being members of that family. I'm saying if you value innocent life then being willing to torture innocents because of who's family they happen to belong to is extremely contradictory.

No no. YOU were talking about innocent family members of terrorists in an attempt to make torture sound even more evil so as to prove your point, I never got into your little attempt at moral high ground. Why not ask me if I'd torture a 2 year old child and hope it can talk so it can reveal what I want to hear?

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 08:01 AM
Demerzel,



So, if you are accused of being a terrorist you should lose your rights and be subject to torture?

Son, do you think the US military randomly tortures people they aren't pretty sure are guilty? With all the mistakes made, the death penalty is still legal in some states, and God knows people got executed before and it was later learned they were innocent. If tortured, hell, at least you're still alive. And yet some people have clearly said that outright murder is better and more moral than torture, such as Xxxevilgrinxxx.

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 08:02 AM
D My whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral.


if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place ;)

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 08:02 AM
Demerzel,


No no. YOU were talking about innocent family members of terrorists in an attempt to make torture sound even more evil so as to prove your point, I never got into your little attempt at moral high ground. Why not ask me if I'd torture a 2 year old child and hope it can talk so it can reveal what I want to hear?

Yes, I was because if you are justifying torture as being necessary I wanted to know how far you would be willing to take that justification and whether you belive there are any lines that shouldn't be crossed. It's not an unreasonable question when we are discussing deleberately inflicting pain/maiming individuals who you cannot be certian will have any useful information. I want to know how far you are willing to walk down that road.

g.o.d.,


if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place

Attack of the circular logic. It is useful to get people to say what you want them to say. That's how it has been used for millenia. That doesn't mean it is useful to get actionable intellegence or useful enough to justify the torture of innocents you have said you are perfectly comfortable with.

Deremzel,


Son, do you think the US military randomly tortures people they aren't pretty sure are guilty? With all the mistakes made, the death penalty is still legal in some states, and God knows people got executed before and it was later learned they were innocent. If tortured, hell, at least you're still alive. And yet some people have clearly said that outright murder is better and more moral than torture, such as Xxxevilgrinxxx.

No, I don't. That said being right, most of the time, doesn't make it okay to torture innocents, ever. Particularly, when the justification offered is the protection of innocent lives.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 08:04 AM
Demerzel,
....Being against torture does not mean I'm a pacifist. My whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral.
....Not everyone who is Somalian or Arab is a terrorist. There are innocents among them.
I'm pretty damned far from being a pacifist also. But I agree that torture is not as effective as it's being touted as being. I also agree that when you continue to use the tactics of people you'd label terrorists for doing the same thing, it tends to make you a terrorist as well.


Demerzel,
So, if you are accused of being a terrorist you should lose your rights and be subject to torture?
Anyone can be so accused. Anyone. That's why it gets dangerous to dehumanise people, and in the past few posts, where Somalis and Arabs have been singled out in particular. When you single out a whole people because of their place of birth or their racial identity? That's scary territory there.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 08:08 AM
Demerzel,



Yes, I was because if you are justifying torture as being necessary I wanted to know how far you would be willing to take that justification and whether you belive there are any lines that shouldn't be crossed. It's not an unreasonable question when we are discussing deleberately inflicting pain/maiming individuals who you cannot be certian will have any useful information. I want to know how far you are willing to walk down that road.

I don't have the moral fiber, or the restraint and control, or simply the raw intelligence required to rightfully deal with such a situation. That's why people like you and I will never be confronted with it, we are ill-equipped to make a wise decision. I'll leave that in the hands of those the elected government chose to protect our freedom.

Thus, I can't answer your question. But I'll say this. Some terrorists don't care about their own lives, but if confronted with their family about to die or get hurt, they might be willing to talk. Doesn't make it right, but it's still an option I would consider. I could go ahead and quote about 20 highly respected people like Patton, Wilde, Von Clausewitz, Asimov and a number of fabled generals and leaders that have plainly said that morals can't get in the way of doing what's right and that sometimes innocent lives must be sacrificed so that a greater number can live.

g.o.d
June 11th, 2010, 08:09 AM
I don't have time for this. I said all I wanted to say. I'm sad there's a majority of peolpe like Ser Scot A Ellison. One day, not in a distant futury, this kind of people will be responsible for the fall of the western civilisation.

Kaiphantom
June 11th, 2010, 08:09 AM
if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place ;)

Smart people wouldn't. Stupid people would. It's pure logic: It's illogical to use a method that has an uncertain outcome when there are better alternatives. Torture accomplishes nothing, so why use it? Since we've established that 99% of the time you can't get useful information out of it, the only reason to engage in it, is if someone really likes inflicting pain on people.

Which makes you, g.o.d, a terrorist. State your full name and location, we are coming to get you. You have no rights, and will be tortured for months on end until we get the information we want. You have no say in this.

And obviously, you are okay with this.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 08:13 AM
Smart people wouldn't. Stupid people would. It's pure logic: It's illogical to use a method that has an uncertain outcome when there are better alternatives. Torture accomplishes nothing, so why use it? Since we've established that 99% of the time you can't get useful information out of it, the only reason to engage in it, is if someone really likes inflicting pain on people.

Which makes you, g.o.d, a terrorist. State your full name and location, we are coming to get you. You have no rights, and will be tortured for months on end until we get the information we want. You have no say in this.

And obviously, you are okay with this.

99% of the time you can't get useful information out of it? Who are you, some retired decorated SOD operative who has seen countless situations with torture involved, enough such situations to say that it NEVER works? Your post was not only completely ignorant, but borders on silly.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 08:16 AM
g.o.d.,


I don't have time for this. I said all I wanted to say. I'm sad there's a majority of peolpe like Ser Scot A Ellison. One day, not in a distant futury, this kind of people will be responsible for the fall of the western civilisation.

The western civilization you want to save wouldn't included ideas like mercy, the universal rights of man, the right to be presumed innocent of a crime before a trial, would it now? You are moving back to the idea that you have to be willing to destroy the very tenents of the Western Civilization you claim to prize in order to save it.

If we become the evil we are fighting, what is there left to save?

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 08:21 AM
g.o.d.,



The western civilization you want to save wouldn't included ideas like mercy, the universal rights of man, the right to be presumed innocent of a crime before a trial, would it now? You are moving back to the idea that you have to be willing to destroy the very tenents of the Western Civilization you claim to prize in order to save it.

If we become the evil we are fighting, what is there left to save?

I wonder what world you live in. You live in America, the country that invades anyone they want and put their nose in anyone's business when they're not wanted. The one country in history that has nuked another nation. You don't live in the most moral of nations, buddy. The US is actually pretty damn immoral as a nation on top of being highly corrupt. It's not as bad as Russia, but still.



Ask the families of the dead on 9/11 how they feel about the lives of possible terrorists. I'm sure they'll sympathize with your opinion.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 11th, 2010, 08:27 AM
Demerzel,


I wonder what world you live in. You live in America, the country that invades anyone they want and put their nose in anyone's business when they're not wanted. The one country in history that has nuked another nation. You don't live in the most moral of nations, buddy. The US is actually pretty damn immoral as a nation on top of being highly corrupt. It's not as bad as Russia, but still.

Ask the families of the dead on 9/11 how they feel about the lives of possible terrorists. I'm sure they'll sympathize with your opinion.

Look I'm well aware of these facts. I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect. Abu Graib/Gitmo/and any variety of abuses over the course of U.S. history will attest to our imperfection. I do not speak for the United States and have never claimed to. I'm simply saying what I believe is acceptable and unacceptable.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 09:08 AM
Gonna quote someone from the Torture thread of Subversion. I initially disagreed with her in her previous posts but what she has posted is -exactly- what I thought and how I think it should be.

"If the person is a prisoner of war, then they are protected by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Conventions have been ratified in the US, specifically the section that includes torture. Torture of POW's is illegal.

If the person is a detainee, then right now, the Geneva Conventions do not apply. A detainee is someone who is accused of promoting terrorism by the CIA. The CIA can authorize acts of torture on detainees. The legality of this is currently being debated in court. It has to be the CIA who authorize it, not a General in the USAF. "

I agree with everything that has to do with real life. Now if we're talking about the show, they never would mentioned if laws in the US have changed or if within the rules of Homeworld Security that have been written specifically for the Stargate program, it's written somewhere that the head of Homeworld Security (O'Neill) can make such decisions when its not on earth. The Stargate is beyond Top Secret and with aliens and everything that happened since the gate was opened, it would be pretty damn understandable if some of our old rules simply were now obsolete.

Edit: On a totally different subject, I really think the head of Homeworld Security should be a four-star position. If the commander of the supply division is 4-star, you'd think the leader of a department responsible for the security of the whole planet would at least have an equal rank.

Ukko
June 11th, 2010, 09:24 AM
I don't have time for this. I said all I wanted to say. I'm sad there's a majority of peolpe like Ser Scot A Ellison. One day, not in a distant futury, this kind of people will be responsible for the fall of the western civilisation.

Greed, ignorance, stupidity and single mindedness will be the downfal the wests so called "Civilisation."

PG15
June 11th, 2010, 10:29 AM
Ask the families of the dead on 9/11 how they feel about the lives of possible terrorists. I'm sure they'll sympathize with your opinion.

Must we bring emotional bias into a discussion that, like most discussions, should be rooted in logic? With all due respect to those people, they wouldn't exactly be the most objective in this matter.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 10:38 AM
Must we bring emotional bias into a discussion that, like most discussions, should be rooted in logic? With all due respect to those people, they wouldn't exactly be the most objective in this matter.

I love how you imply that because those families lost loved ones at the hands of terrorists, their opinion on the subject wouldn't be as relevant as anyone else's. Unless you worded that wrong and meant something else.

PG15
June 11th, 2010, 10:43 AM
Oh, their opinions will be relevant, just like most people's, but it's still difficult to see whether they are being objective when obviously the issue is so close to home - closer to home than most people.

I don't want to be insensitive, but in a debate such as this I'd rather have the experts in this field (i.e. actual interrogation folks) doing the debate with knowledge and data than random people off the street, even if that person has felt the tragic effects of terrorism.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 10:47 AM
I doubt an ex-SAD will ever come on those forums and debate this with us, unfortunately.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 10:53 AM
I think that assuming that all the families of all the people that died on 9/11 share similar views, on anything, is ill-informed. I'm quite sure there are some that would support torture, just as there are clearly some that have different ideas. By all means, share your opinions, but don't claim to speak for everyone that has gone through a tragedy because you think it may improve your argument. There have been quite a few of those family members that have spoken out about Guantanamo and other practices, enough to ensure that their opinions aren't homogenous.

Kaiphantom
June 11th, 2010, 11:39 AM
99% of the time you can't get useful information out of it? Who are you, some retired decorated SOD operative who has seen countless situations with torture involved, enough such situations to say that it NEVER works? Your post was not only completely ignorant, but borders on silly.

It's called logic. You can't know whether the person you're torturing actually has correct information you may need. And judging by Gitmo, 72% of detainees so far were completely innocent! But here's the main thing: if you torture, then you are no better than the enemies you fight. You've looked too long into the abyss, and now you lack the empathy that makes up your very humanity. You are no better than the Goa'uld.

It's your right to your own opinion, but know that everyone else will declare you the enemy, and know that you must be fought the same way. The majority of humanity does not want the world you bring. Like most people who declare torture a good thing, you've never experienced it for yourself, and you wouldn't want to... which makes you hypocritical. How would you feel if I dragged you off the street, declared you an detainee (thus you don't have rights), and repeatedly jabbed nails into your limbs? It will all stop if you just tell me what I want to know... but you know you're innocent, and thus can't tell me. But I won't listen, and continue to stab you with tazers, waterboard you, burn your flesh with hot irons, etc.

And you are completely okay with this.

Rudy Pena
June 11th, 2010, 11:57 AM
Gonna quote someone from the Torture thread of Subversion. I initially disagreed with her in her previous posts but what she has posted is -exactly- what I thought and how I think it should be.

"If the person is a prisoner of war, then they are protected by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Conventions have been ratified in the US, specifically the section that includes torture. Torture of POW's is illegal.

If the person is a detainee, then right now, the Geneva Conventions do not apply. A detainee is someone who is accused of promoting terrorism by the CIA. The CIA can authorize acts of torture on detainees. The legality of this is currently being debated in court. It has to be the CIA who authorize it, not a General in the USAF. "

I agree with everything that has to do with real life. Now if we're talking about the show, they never would mentioned if laws in the US have changed or if within the rules of Homeworld Security that have been written specifically for the Stargate program, it's written somewhere that the head of Homeworld Security (O'Neill) can make such decisions when its not on earth. The Stargate is beyond Top Secret and with aliens and everything that happened since the gate was opened, it would be pretty damn understandable if some of our old rules simply were now obsolete.

Edit: On a totally different subject, I really think the head of Homeworld Security should be a four-star position. If the commander of the supply division is 4-star, you'd think the leader of a department responsible for the security of the whole planet would at least have an equal rank.

You do know the the Geneva Convention is for only uniformed service of a country. So all these people that are not in any real countries military do not fall under and are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Just thought I point that out to you. :)

rlr149
June 11th, 2010, 12:43 PM
rlr,

Sure it includes "the truth" but how do you tell the difference between the turth you need and the lie told to make the pain stop or to deceive?

its a judgement call, like i said, there are no guarantees................ ever, innocent people CAN get jailed, and guilty people CAN be aquitted. innocence means nothing if the evidence is stacked against you and vice versa. 'knowing' you are innocent doesn't mean you don't have to 'pick up the soap' in the prison shower if you are wrongly jailed, it may help ease the pain but i doubt it.
and if you are in fact innocent then prison itself is 'torture' as defined. most anti-torture people seem to be of the opinion 'that's fine' while you take the time to do the whole 'due process' part................ almost certainly not for the innocent person though.:sheppardanime31:

i'm not advocating random torture...................... but if i found a guy 'dripping' with radiation in a room full of bomb making equipment, and he says "%^&£ you pig-dog, i tell you nothing!!"....................... i'm inclined to think he knows something i should know, and i should make every effort to find out what he's making the effort to hide, and if he's hiding nothing then he has no problem being co-operative to start with (regardless of his politics, every sane person will agree nukes/radiation is bad).................. thus not requiring an coersive techniques. its not like i'm just going to let him go if he does co-operate, he may lie like you said. it certainly wouldn't be better for him in the long run though;)
i'm of the opinion though that you don't jerk around the guy with the gun/knife/bucket of soapy frogs and industrial jar of swarfega:D that would be stupid, and stupid can get you killed. nobody wants that!

their politics don't interest me, any threat to me and mine does.

unthinkable (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/), watch it. not because i based my opinions on it, which i didn't, but it deals with this very subject fairly ambiguously, its a "what would you do" movie.

rlr149
June 11th, 2010, 12:49 PM
if you torture, then you are no better than the enemies you fight.

who decides what's/who's "better"? you do....................... and so do they.

Kaiphantom
June 11th, 2010, 01:04 PM
who decides what's/who's "better"? you do....................... and so do they.

No, logic does. If our enemies prefer dictatorships, and you prefer dictatorships, then there is no difference between you and our enemies. Especially if the rest of us prefer a democratic republic.

I notice no one who has advocated torture, has bothered to reply to my question about whether they are okay with being tortured themselves. In fact, I propose a compromise: you want to torture someone? Fine. You submit to 6 months of torture yourself first, so you know first-hand what you are inflicting on other people.

Methinks some people watch too much TV with regards to situations with which torture comes up. You can concoct any hypothetical situation you want... but those don't exist in the real world.


but if i found a guy 'dripping' with radiation in a room full of bomb making equipment, and he says "%^&£ you pig-dog, i tell you nothing!!"....................... i'm inclined to think he knows something i should know, and i should make every effort to find out what he's making the effort to hide, and if he's hiding nothing then he has no problem being co-operative to start with

Like this. If I wanna find out what he's up to? Read his notes and his computers. I'd probably have tapped his phone lines and had him under surveillance long before this, so I'd already know what he was up to and who his accomplices were. No need to torture. If I really wanted to know something, I'd offer him a plea bargain to serve up his mates and plans; but only if they were truthful, which I could confirm before finalizing the plea bargain.

Dangling carrots works so much better than the stick, especially to those that truly understand human psychology.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 01:11 PM
... If I wanna find out what he's up to? Read his notes and his computers. I'd probably have tapped his phone lines and had him under surveillance long before this, so I'd already know what he was up to and who his accomplices were. No need to torture. If I really wanted to know something, I'd offer him a plea bargain to serve up his mates and plans; but only if they were truthful, which I could confirm before finalizing the plea bargain.

Dangling carrots works so much better than the stick, especially to those that truly understand human psychology.yes, this, exactly. Treat terrorism as a crime, rather than as an act of war. Investigate. Prosecute. Incarcerate.

Demerzel
June 11th, 2010, 01:40 PM
yes, this, exactly. Treat terrorism as a crime, rather than as an act of war. Investigate. Prosecute. Incarcerate.

Ouch. Never lost so many IQ points only by reading something.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 02:25 PM
Ouch. Never lost so many IQ points only by reading something.

be careful with those :)

In case you think it's stupid to prosecute terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war, it seemed to work quite well for the '93 WTC bombing, and continues to work against domestic terrorism. FBI teams continue to be sent abroad to investigate acts of terrorism directed at the US. Investigations, prosecutions and incarcerations all around. As in, it has worked. If you think that's stupid, well, that's your right I suppose, but why would you dismiss something that apparently works, provably, for something that seems less sure and or less reliable?

rlr149
June 11th, 2010, 02:54 PM
No, logic does. If our enemies prefer dictatorships, and you prefer dictatorships, then there is no difference between you and our enemies. Especially if the rest of us prefer a democratic republic.no, you decide if you're "better" than somebody else, you believe you're "better" than torture advocators, and the only real reason you have is because 'you say so'. your enemies also believe they're "better" than you also because 'they say so', and its them you need to convince, not me...................... if you see any deities about that can corroborate your "i'm the most logical and right" story, bring them, would almost certainly negate the need to torture anyone. or even disagree in the first place!!


I notice no one who has advocated torture, has bothered to reply to my question about whether they are okay with being tortured themselves. In fact, I propose a compromise: you want to torture someone? Fine. You submit to 6 months of torture yourself first, so you know first-hand what you are inflicting on other people.
its not like i "want" to torture, sure i'd feel bad afterword too. i don't "want" to go to work either and i feel bad after that..................... but i have to when its required. when it's not required i don't go;) and when i don't go, i don't sit there thinking about going again.
i've got better things to do rather than torture someone, also got better things to do rather than die. unfortunatly that might(notice i said might) include torturing someone.

i'm of the opinion though that you don't jerk around the guy with the gun/knife/bucket of soapy frogs and industrial jar of swarfega that would be stupid, and stupid can get you killed. nobody wants that!
so to clarify, no i wouldn't want to be tortured, but i wouldn't be stupid enough to annoy the guy likely to do it, its no guarantee but it can't make the situation worse for me. co-operation is a a good start.


Methinks some people watch too much TV with regards to situations with which torture comes up. You can concoct any hypothetical situation you want... but those don't exist in the real world.neither do you apparently. i'm not saying torture doesn't go on for reasons i don't agree with, only pointing out the line they'd have to cross to get me started. if time and lives are a factor and reasonably good but still circumstantial evidence is all i have, and an un-cooperative suspect, who isn't helping himself. then its not going to be how either of us(me/suspect) would prefer.


Like this. If I wanna find out what he's up to? Read his notes and his computers.
and if you can't?
I'd probably have tapped his phone lines and had him under surveillance long before thisprecognitive too?, or is everyone in your world under surveilance JIC? why not just go for a police state?
so I'd already know what he was up to and who his accomplices were.precogs are awesome:cool:
No need to torture.not when you can read minds, no.
If I really wanted to know something, I'd offer him a plea bargain to serve up his mates and plans; but only if they were truthful, which I could confirm before finalizing the plea bargain.haven't you already taken the required info from his mind?!?!?


Dangling carrots works so much better than the stick, especially to those that truly understand human psychology.do you need us to bow or just adore you silently from afar? i'd prefer afar tbh because the sun that shines out of you're posterior is torture.

Kaiphantom
June 11th, 2010, 02:56 PM
Plenty of terrorist acts were foiled by plain ole investigative work. Not as exciting as simply torturing someone, and requires more work Plenty more terrorists are caught after the fact by plain ole investigate work.

I know, work is hard; who cares about effort when I can just jab someone with a hot poke over and over and hope I get lucky? After all, real work is hard! No one should be expected to follow due process or do research or any of that other icky stuff.

Edit to respond to rlr149:

No precog at all. You set the condition that we're busting in on this guy, which means we must have suspected him long before knocking his door down. Do you even know how it gets to that point in the first place? Someone calls in a tip, or someone who has a criminal record or was spotted in other crimes, was known to be in the area via one of several legal methods. That means you watch, get warrants to tap phones, etc. If you're busting down a door without doing any research to have any kind of clue what you're gonna find, then you're a crappy officer.

Logic is logic. It doesn't care what you or I think or decide. If you are unable to understand logic, and instead keep your mind closed and repeat opinions that have no basis in reality, then there is little to be done here. Refute my points by pointing out flaws in my logic.

An object is small. It is red and shiny. It has a stem. It is growing on a tree. Logical deduction tells you it is most likely an apple, or at least a fruit. Reality doesn't care what you or I think, and logic helps you discover what reality is.


so to clarify, no i wouldn't want to be tortured, but i wouldn't be stupid enough to annoy the guy likely to do it, its no guarantee but it can't make the situation worse for me. co-operation is a a good start.

Then you are a coward, sir, as well as a hypocrite. You would gladly push other people through something you won't do yourself. Plain and simple. I'd have more respect for you, if you actually said, "Yes, I'd allow myself to be tortured for six months, because I wouldn't put anyone through what I wasn't willing to go through myself."

That at least takes balls.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 11th, 2010, 02:59 PM
Plenty of terrorist acts were foiled by plain ole investigative work. Not as exciting as simply torturing someone, and requires more work Plenty more terrorists are caught after the fact by plain ole investigate work.

I know, work is hard; who cares about effort when I can just jab someone with a hot poke over and over and hope I get lucky? After all, real work is hard! No one should be expected to follow due process or do research or any of that other icky stuff.don't make me green you, Kai, I could never live with myself in the morning :)

Deevil
June 11th, 2010, 08:32 PM
yes, this, exactly. Treat terrorism as a crime, rather than as an act of war. Investigate. Prosecute. Incarcerate.

Exactly, logically speaking anyway that is the only way to know that there is a terrorist threat. Torturing random people off the street does not = the ability to determine that there is going to be a terrorist attack.

garhkal
June 12th, 2010, 04:50 AM
This is unequivocally, 110% wrong.

Had Young made the tough call O'Neill suggested he should have and vented the gate room, the torture would have saved the ship. I suggest you probably are against torture no matter how good the results are.

But looking back we can say that. AT the time, though his efforts to remove the brainwashing did not produce enough of a result. BUT only time will tell.


A lot of morals are dictated by law. I'm sure a lot of people would suddenly think torture should be used in the right way, if they knew their entire planet was threatened on a daily basis.

I disagree with that assessment. Look at the ancients. They were unwilling to use the Arc of truth to turn off the Ori's willingness to wage a holy war. Many of us are just the same. If we compromise what it means to be good to survive, are we worth surviving. THAT is what we are on about.


Yes and no. It's one way to go, but you have to understand the bigger picture and your principles: Do you have to destroy the village in order to save it? Do you sacrifice what you are fighting for, in order to win? If you use the same tactics as those you fight, are you any better?


Precisely. if i become evil to fight it, have i really won?


For all the people who complained that under no circumstances is torturing a prisoner acceptable... I hope "Incursion, Part 1" proved that you were mistaken. Had they not tortured Telford, everyone on that ship would most-likely be dead or suffering even further losses. Young knew what he had to do and he did it, and he no doubt saved many innocent lives in doing so.

And did it get us anywhere?? NO we are down 1 life, have all our people prisoners bar 4, and the enemy has some control over the ship.


I disagree. This is not about semantics. It's about what lines you think it is okay to cross in the name of saving "innocent lives." If you are willing to allow innocents to be tortured to save other innocents I would find that rather ironic given that the justification for the torture of innocents is the protection of innocent lives.

Good point. At what point is a line crossed where it is not ok?


ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it.

Boy i am glad you are not in any position of power. And i wonder if you would be so willig to kill others if it was YOUR family being brought in one at a time to make you talk.


Anyone can be so accused. Anyone. That's why it gets dangerous to dehumanise people, and in the past few posts, where Somalis and Arabs have been singled out in particular. When you single out a whole people because of their place of birth or their racial identity? That's scary territory there.

Very true, as that sets a precident for others to be so 'dehumanized'.

rlr149
June 12th, 2010, 04:56 AM
No precog at all. You set the condition that we're busting in on this guy, which means we must have suspected him long before knocking his door down.
who said we were looking for him? i said "if i found". people have certainly been picked up for a minor crime then it turns out they did something else major too. cars have been pulled over for the hideous crime of speeding............... but its only the speeders dead wife in the boot.

you may not actually be looking for the thing you find. happens to me all the time with my couch..................... i'd like to find money but its usually just pens and fluff ;)

you're logic is that it "never works", thats the more extraordinary claim therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

keep your mind closed
which of us is dismissing torture out of hand again? seems i have opened up more options.

That at least takes balls.

its not like you're out there stopping it either though are you. well done on being as "ball"less as me.

Ukko
June 12th, 2010, 05:56 AM
Then you are a coward, sir, as well as a hypocrite. You would gladly push other people through something you won't do yourself. Plain and simple. I'd have more respect for you, if you actually said, "Yes, I'd allow myself to be tortured for six months, because I wouldn't put anyone through what I wasn't willing to go through myself."

That at least takes balls.

Would you ask folks in army training to let someone shoot them or drop a bomb on their house, so they know what it feels like before they go off and do it to the enemy?
Would you ask police officers and Judges etc etc, to lock themselves in prison for a month so they know how it feels to do it to others?

Calling him/her a coward for not wanting to be tortured is stupid.
Im in favour of torture, but i wouldnt want to be tortured. I wouldnt want to torture anyone else. But i would do it if need be. If i was captured by the enemy and tortured, would i like it? No. Would it make me anti torture? No.

Im currently in the proccess of joining the army. I dont want to get shot or blown up, im sure no one does. But its likey im going to have to that to the enemy. Would you like to come to England and shoot me and members of my family so i know how it feels? Or do you just want to call me a coward?

rlr149
June 12th, 2010, 06:30 AM
Calling him/her a coward for not wanting to be tortured is stupid.
appreciate the sentiment but watch that kind of talk at GW, the 'S' word lacks "respect"............... though i don't need to use the word to lack it;)

Im in favour of torturejust like to say i'm NOT in favour of it! but i don't dismiss it out of hand like the more "open-minded" among us do:sheppardanime31:

Ukko
June 12th, 2010, 06:36 AM
appreciate the sentiment but watch that kind of talk at GW, the 'S' word lacks "respect"............... though i don't need to use the word to lack it;)
You may be right.
I should explain i wasnt calling him/her stupid personaly. I just thought that that particular statement was.


just like to say i'm NOT in favour of it! but i don't dismiss it out of hand like the more "open-minded" among us do:sheppardanime31:

Kind of what i ment. Should learn to word things better.
Can you blame me? You should see the school i went to....They knocked it down and built a new one:p

SantaSlayer
June 12th, 2010, 09:34 AM
Plenty of terrorist acts were foiled by plain ole investigative work. Not as exciting as simply torturing someone, and requires more work Plenty more terrorists are caught after the fact by plain ole investigate work.

I know, work is hard; who cares about effort when I can just jab someone with a hot poke over and over and hope I get lucky? After all, real work is hard! No one should be expected to follow due process or do research or any of that other icky stuff.

Edit to respond to rlr149:

No precog at all. You set the condition that we're busting in on this guy, which means we must have suspected him long before knocking his door down. Do you even know how it gets to that point in the first place? Someone calls in a tip, or someone who has a criminal record or was spotted in other crimes, was known to be in the area via one of several legal methods. That means you watch, get warrants to tap phones, etc. If you're busting down a door without doing any research to have any kind of clue what you're gonna find, then you're a crappy officer.

Logic is logic. It doesn't care what you or I think or decide. If you are unable to understand logic, and instead keep your mind closed and repeat opinions that have no basis in reality, then there is little to be done here. Refute my points by pointing out flaws in my logic.

An object is small. It is red and shiny. It has a stem. It is growing on a tree. Logical deduction tells you it is most likely an apple, or at least a fruit. Reality doesn't care what you or I think, and logic helps you discover what reality is.



Then you are a coward, sir, as well as a hypocrite. You would gladly push other people through something you won't do yourself. Plain and simple. I'd have more respect for you, if you actually said, "Yes, I'd allow myself to be tortured for six months, because I wouldn't put anyone through what I wasn't willing to go through myself."

That at least takes balls.

Now I know you hate torture and I respect your view on this but what would YOU do if the person you successfully captured is the RIGHT guy BUT he doesn't cooperate or give you any other information of his operation that could potentially injure or kill innocent people. Keep in mind we don't really know how such a situation in REAL LIFE is approached, well I don't but I'm just saying what could or might happen and A LOT of things can and happen, its not all one sided. Maybe mind games by terrorists actually do happen which might hamper progress and the more time goes by the chances of innocent lives dying increases and as I said we or I don't really know how it works in RL unless we saw it firsthand so we shouldn't just say "oh this cant happen only works in 24..." but say just one RARE ticking time bomb scenario actually comes to life or something SIMILAR to that nature comes to life, how would you respond?

Rudy Pena
June 12th, 2010, 03:58 PM
Would you ask folks in army training to let someone shoot them or drop a bomb on their house, so they know what it feels like before they go off and do it to the enemy?
Would you ask police officers and Judges etc etc, to lock themselves in prison for a month so they know how it feels to do it to others?

Calling him/her a coward for not wanting to be tortured is stupid.
Im in favour of torture, but i wouldnt want to be tortured. I wouldnt want to torture anyone else. But i would do it if need be. If i was captured by the enemy and tortured, would i like it? No. Would it make me anti torture? No.

Im currently in the proccess of joining the army. I dont want to get shot or blown up, im sure no one does. But its likey im going to have to that to the enemy. Would you like to come to England and shoot me and members of my family so i know how it feels? Or do you just want to call me a coward?
I know I dont want to get shot or have my family members shot or anyone I love or care about, just cause I might do that to the enemy.

And having just spent one year in Iraq and I got motored quite a few times and some even so close that I felt it impact, even one of them one time landed less that 100 feet away from my barracks. I know I dont want my family going through that, just cause we bomb them and they motor us. Its one experience, that I wouldnt and dont want my family members and loved ones to go through and trust me, you dont want to have your family members go through it just cause we do it to the enemy.

P.S. Ukko, I got your back in this thread. :)

Giantevilhead
June 12th, 2010, 06:34 PM
99% of the time you can't get useful information out of it? Who are you, some retired decorated SOD operative who has seen countless situations with torture involved, enough such situations to say that it NEVER works? Your post was not only completely ignorant, but borders on silly.

We know it doesn't work because of data collected from evaluations of American POW's who have been subjected to torture techniques that are far worse than what the western world considers torture. POW's were subjected to real torture in World War 2, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Guess what neuropsychiatric evaluations of American POW's found? POW's who were subjected to torture were far less likely to collaborate with the enemy or give the enemy useful intelligence than those who were not subjected to torture.

rlr149
June 12th, 2010, 07:29 PM
We know it doesn't work because of data collected from evaluations of American POW's who have been subjected to torture techniques that are far worse than what the western world considers torture. POW's were subjected to real torture in World War 2, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Guess what neuropsychiatric evaluations of American POW's found? POW's who were subjected to torture were far less likely to collaborate with the enemy or give the enemy useful intelligence than those who were not subjected to torture.

so less than 5% of the worlds population isn't affected by torture. i'll put it down to coincidence that it just happens to be the self percieved "greatest country in the world" thats saying it:P not what i would call representative statistics though................... or really that believable, you just said

We know it doesn't work
and

were far less likely

so which is it? doesn't work AT ALL! or it MIGHT work?

ofc americans might say the same to dissuade people from torturing americans when they inevitably "stick their oar" in another country's business....... again.:sheppardanime31:

Giantevilhead
June 12th, 2010, 07:51 PM
so less than 5% of the worlds population isn't affected by torture. i'll put it down to coincidence that it just happens to be the self percieved "greatest country in the world" thats saying it:P not what i would call representative statistics though................... or really that believable, you just said

Actually, psychological evaluations done by other countries on tortured POW's had similar results. In fact, China, who are experts in torture, doesn't torture the people they want information from. They use sophisticated techniques to gain compliance through use of psychological and social pressures without physically harming anyone.

Also, you do know that torture has always been used to get people to lie don't you? The Inquisition waterboarded people to get them to "confess" their sins and "convert" to the right faith. The Soviets tortured people to get them to admit to counterrevolutionary acts and to incriminate other enemies of the state. The Chinese are still using torture to get political enemies to recant their criticisms of the government.


so which is it? doesn't work AT ALL! or it MIGHT work?

ofc americans might say the same to dissuade people from torturing americans when they inevitably "stick their oar" in another country's business....... again.:sheppardanime31:

It doesn't work reliably. It's a gamble. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and he admitted to plots to assassinate Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, as well as Pope John Paul II, President Musharraf, and Henry Kissinger. He also admitted to planning to destroy various US nuclear power plants, suspension bridges, oil tankers, naval vessels, various companies, US and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia. I'm sure that they got enough information out of him to save both Metropolis and Gotham City.

aretood2
June 12th, 2010, 08:16 PM
so less than 5% of the worlds population isn't affected by torture. i'll put it down to coincidence that it just happens to be the self percieved "greatest country in the world" thats saying it:P not what i would call representative statistics though................... or really that believable, you just said

and


so which is it? doesn't work AT ALL! or it MIGHT work?

ofc americans might say the same to dissuade people from torturing americans when they inevitably "stick their oar" in another country's business....... again.:sheppardanime31:

So I'm guessing you don't put too much stock into scientific studies. Samples are needed to test populations, because populations are quite frankly impossible to test as a whole. If you use the right math, you can get a pretty good representative sample. What these studies that Giantevilhead proved was that American soldiers are less likely to give up any information via torture than they are via other methods. So, unless we are willing to call American soldiers superior to terrorists on racial/national grounds, it's safe to say that the science points to the fact that in general torture is one of the less effective methods of gaining information.

Giantevilhead
June 12th, 2010, 08:55 PM
So I'm guessing you don't put too much stock into scientific studies. Samples are needed to test populations, because populations are quite frankly impossible to test as a whole. If you use the right math, you can get a pretty good representative sample. What these studies that Giantevilhead proved was that American soldiers are less likely to give up any information via torture than they are via other methods. So, unless we are willing to call American soldiers superior to terrorists on racial/national grounds, it's safe to say that the science points to the fact that in general torture is one of the less effective methods of gaining information.

Well, there is also the ethical issue of not being able to test torture experimentally.

Also, the American POW's evaluated after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam were subjected to torture that are far worse than the kind we use today. The Nazis and Japanese flayed prisoners alive, set hungry dogs on them, threw boiling water on them, and of course conducted live medical experiments on them. The North Koreans were/are fond of gouging flesh out of prisoners, force feeding prisoners rather unpleasant substances, "exploiting" existing wound, and mutilating bodies and sometimes living people for prisoners to see. Interestingly, the Chinese were far more "kind" in their treatment of American POW's during the Korean War and as a result they were far more effective. The Chinese didn't use much physical coercion and instead brainwashed POW's with psychological techniques and got a much higher percentage of prisoners to collaborate. The Vietnamese used rats and various animals to great effect, there were the routine beatings and drownings, and put people in sweatboxes for hours at a time. If they rarely broke then I really doubt that the techniques used today would work.

rlr149
June 12th, 2010, 10:07 PM
Actually, psychological evaluations done by other countries on tortured POW's had similar results. In fact, China, who are experts in torture, doesn't torture the people they want information from. They use sophisticated techniques to gain compliance through use of psychological and social pressures without physically harming anyone.
mentally harming them is fine though is it?


Also, you do know that torture has always been used to get people to lie don't you? The Inquisition waterboarded people to get them to "confess" their sins and "convert" to the right faith. The Soviets tortured people to get them to admit to counterrevolutionary acts and to incriminate other enemies of the state. The Chinese are still using torture to get political enemies to recant their criticisms of the government.yes i did know it, i never condoned random torture or even torture "just so you agree with me" though, stop pretending i have.


It doesn't work reliably. It's a gamble.
like i implied with the words "judgement call"................ someone isn't reading whats written.

So I'm guessing you don't put too much stock into scientific studies.

actually i do, which is why i don't accept that only asking people from a specific country(and a fairly 'well off' one at that, compared to the rest) and claiming its the same in 194 other countries, is a fair or balanced scientific study.
unless americans despite their "greatest country" attitude actually turn out to be only "average". can't see them happily admitting that though.

Demerzel
June 12th, 2010, 10:45 PM
Well, there is also the ethical issue of not being able to test torture experimentally.

Also, the American POW's evaluated after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam were subjected to torture that are far worse than the kind we use today. The Nazis and Japanese flayed prisoners alive, set hungry dogs on them, threw boiling water on them, and of course conducted live medical experiments on them. The North Koreans were/are fond of gouging flesh out of prisoners, force feeding prisoners rather unpleasant substances, "exploiting" existing wound, and mutilating bodies and sometimes living people for prisoners to see. Interestingly, the Chinese were far more "kind" in their treatment of American POW's during the Korean War and as a result they were far more effective. The Chinese didn't use much physical coercion and instead brainwashed POW's with psychological techniques and got a much higher percentage of prisoners to collaborate. The Vietnamese used rats and various animals to great effect, there were the routine beatings and drownings, and put people in sweatboxes for hours at a time. If they rarely broke then I really doubt that the techniques used today would work.

There is no difference whatsoever between physical and mental torture. Both are torture. If we're discussing what kind of torture is less moral than the other, I think it would be an entirely different subject. Sticking sharp things in a guy, and threatening to shoot his wife and kids if he doesn't talk, are both forms of torture. From what you're saying, you seem to think that mental torture works great while physical torture doesn't. The bottom line remains that torture works sometimes. Just not physical torture. Unless you meant something entirely different.

Giantevilhead
June 12th, 2010, 10:46 PM
mentally harming them is fine though is it?

If you're arguing that the ends justifies the means then don't you have to make sure that the means can actually get you to the ends? Torture doesn't work reliably, brainwashing does. If you're going to pick a morally questionable method of extracting information, why not pick the one that actually works?


yes i did know it, i never condoned random torture or even torture "just so you agree with me" though, stop pretending i have.


You do know that there's no way to know if the person tortured is just saying what you want them to say don't you? The fact is that the person being tortured will think that you want a certain answer. Unless you can construct the questions so perfectly that it doesn't make the prisoners think that you want to hear a certain answer while at the same time giving them enough information so that they can tell you the real information you want, there's no way to know if the prisoner is just telling what you want to hear or what they think you want to hear.


like i implied with the words "judgement call"................ someone isn't reading whats written.

So under what conditions should such "judgment calls" be made? Unless you can create some kind of workable metric for how these things should be done to ensure success, just saying that there should be a "judgment call" is completely meaningless.


actually i do, which is why i don't accept that only asking people from a specific country(and a fairly 'well off' one at that, compared to the rest) and claiming its the same in 194 other countries, is a fair or balanced scientific study.
unless americans despite their "greatest country" attitude actually turn out to be only "average". can't see them happily admitting that though.

As I mentioned before, data collected from evaluations of POW's from other countries have similar results. Also, the evaluations of American POW's who had been held in China during the Korean War showed much greater rate of collaboration, not only that but they also showed that Chinese held POW's were far more likely to agree with what the Communists are doing in Asia. If they admit that American POW's broke and collaborated and sometimes even sympathized with the Chinese under very little physical pressure then why would they lie about Americans not breaking under torture? Heck, the reports even detailed POW's participating in Chinese held essay contests where they praised Communist rule in China.

Giantevilhead
June 12th, 2010, 11:03 PM
There is no difference whatsoever between physical and mental torture. Both are torture. If we're discussing what kind of torture is less moral than the other, I think it would be an entirely different subject. Sticking sharp things in a guy, and threatening to shoot his wife and kids if he doesn't talk, are both forms of torture. From what you're saying, you seem to think that mental torture works great while physical torture doesn't. The bottom line remains that torture works sometimes. Just not physical torture. Unless you meant something entirely different.

Exactly. If the ends justifies the means then you have to pick the means that'll actually get you to your ends. Physical torture doesn't work reliably, brainwashing does. Therefore, if we want to extract information from terrorists, we should brainwash them, not waterboard them, or put them in stress positions, or "exploit" their wounds.

Also, brainwashing does not entail threatening people. It's a very subtle and methodical process. It relies on some very basic psychological and social principles like cognitive commitment and consistency, rules of reciprocity, social proof, etc. The Chinese got American POW's to cooperate by doing little things. They gave the American POW's opportunities to write home to their family but the POW's had to write a few sentences or a paragraph sympathetic to Communism in China, often times not even in the letter but on a separate paper. They had essay contests but the winners weren't the ones that were very supportive of the communists, the winners were actually very favorable to the United States but had a few concessions to the communist. The overall goal of the Chinese was to slowly get the Americans to their side without actually compromising their own sense of loyalty to the United States. The Chinese liked to display statements of support written by American POW's, not just to show their own benevolence but the engage more American POW's in these activities and to get the POW's who wrote those statements to own up to them. The will of the American POW's were slowly corroded and they began collaborating with the Chinese while still thinking that they were loyal to America. Many POW's were still antipathetic to the Chinese after they came back to the US but they made statements like, "communism won't work here but it works well in China" or "the communists are doing a fine job in Asia and we shouldn't be involved there."

rlr149
June 13th, 2010, 05:59 AM
If you're arguing that the ends justifies the means
i'm not saying it WILL, i'm saying it MIGHT, there is a difference, learn it.

then don't you have to make sure that the means can actually get you to the ends? Torture doesn't work reliably, brainwashing does. If you're going to pick a morally questionable method of extracting information, why not pick the one that actually works?
might not have the time to brainwash, it doesn't happen overnight. sticking a fork in someones spine may get me an answer quicker................. and i'll have more time to get it corroborated.


You do know that there's no way to know if the person tortured is just saying what you want them to say don't you?
you're just making it up as you go along, why would i not check out/have checked out what he's saying?!? if my job involved torture i'm sure i'd get resources/manpower to order about. its not my job though.

The fact is that the person being tortured will think that you want a certain answer.
its called the "truth" and all he has to do is give it to me. save us both a lot of time and pain. win/win for everyone.

Unless you can construct the questions so perfectly that it doesn't make the prisoners think that you want to hear a certain answer while at the same time giving them enough information so that they can tell you the real information you want, there's no way to know if the prisoner is just telling what you want to hear or what they think you want to hear.
re-read my last two paragraphs.


So under what conditions should such "judgment calls" be made? Unless you can create some kind of workable metric for how these things should be done to ensure success, just saying that there should be a "judgment call" is completely meaningless.my conditions................ if i'm the torturer. i already make decisions without getting agreement from the rest of the world, not going to give that up because i happen to not like the outcomes this time.


As I mentioned before,
gonna stop you right there................... links please........................ and if someone posts a wiki link, i'm getting my pliers/bamboo shoots out:P

aretood2
June 13th, 2010, 07:42 PM
actually i do, which is why i don't accept that only asking people from a specific country(and a fairly 'well off' one at that, compared to the rest) and claiming its the same in 194 other countries, is a fair or balanced scientific study.
unless americans despite their "greatest country" attitude actually turn out to be only "average". can't see them happily admitting that though.
POW's from WW2 and Vietnam war did not live in the same American Culture as we do now. During the American Mexican war, for example, there were cases of entire units defecting to the Mexican army. People were not very pleased with the country during the Vietnam War, in rallies the North Korean flag was flown in place of the American flag countless times. It was the birth of flag burning, and many soldiers were sent of to fight a war they did not believe in against their will. I'd hardly think that the social structure was inductive to the whole "America is the best" mentality.

The Social stress that the nation went through in that war has left scars that still live on today in a variety of ways that I think most people don't realize. It left an entire generation disgusted of the country. Yet these people who lacked national pride and purpose did not give up information under torture.

There is no difference whatsoever between physical and mental torture. Both are torture. If we're discussing what kind of torture is less moral than the other, I think it would be an entirely different subject. Sticking sharp things in a guy, and threatening to shoot his wife and kids if he doesn't talk, are both forms of torture. From what you're saying, you seem to think that mental torture works great while physical torture doesn't. The bottom line remains that torture works sometimes. Just not physical torture. Unless you meant something entirely different.
Does brainwashing require torture?

Giantevilhead
June 13th, 2010, 11:27 PM
i'm not saying it WILL, i'm saying it MIGHT, there is a difference, learn it.
might not have the time to brainwash, it doesn't happen overnight. sticking a fork in someones spine may get me an answer quicker................. and i'll have more time to get it corroborated.

You do know that actually makes your argument weaker don't you? Being 90% sure that doing something bad will have good results justifies the action far more than only being 20% sure that it'll have good results.

Also, how do you know that torturing people will get you answers quicker. Since you want to see my sources, which I will provide, I want to see some of your sources. And episodes of 24 don't count.


you're just making it up as you go along, why would i not check out/have checked out what he's saying?!? if my job involved torture i'm sure i'd get resources/manpower to order about. its not my job though.

its called the "truth" and all he has to do is give it to me. save us both a lot of time and pain. win/win for everyone.

It's been well established that people will confess to crimes that they did not commit when under pressure.

Here are a few sources:

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A, & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”:
A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29 (2), 211-227.

Kassin, S. & Kiechel, K. (1996). The Social Psychology of False Confessions. Psychological Science, 7 (3), 125-128.

Redlich, A. D. (2010). False confessions, false guilty pleas: Similarities and differences. Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations, 49-66.

Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, P. J. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human communication research, 36 (1), 82-102.

Oh and torture actually interferes with memory so you're less likely to get the truth.

O'Mara, S. (2009). Torturing the brain: On the folk psychology and folk neurobiology motivating "enhanced and coercive interrogation techniques". Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (12), 497-500.

Ray, W.J.et al. (2006) Decoupling neural networks from reality: dissociative experiences in torture victims are reflected in abnormal brain waves in left frontal cortex. Psychological Science, 17, 825–829

Catani, C.et al. (2009) Pattern of cortical activation during processing of aversive stimuli in traumatized survivors of war and torture. Clinincal Neuroscience, 259, 340–351.


my conditions................ if i'm the torturer. i already make decisions without getting agreement from the rest of the world, not going to give that up because i happen to not like the outcomes this time.

That makes no sense. Just because you're making decisions that the rest of the world don't agree with doesn't mean that you can make any decision you want. You still have to make the decisions that have the greatest probability of getting results. Even if you're torturing people, you have to pick the kind of torture that is most effective in getting people to talk. You can't just use every torture technique in the Inquisition handbook and hope that you'll get some results.


gonna stop you right there................... links please........................ and if someone posts a wiki link, i'm getting my pliers/bamboo shoots out:P

Wheatley, R. D., Ursano, R. J. (1982). Serial personality evaluations of repatriated U.S. Air Force Southeast Asia POWs. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53 (3), 251-257.

Schein, E. (1956). The Chinese indoctrination program for prisoners of war: A study of attempted "brainwashing." Psycholoogy, 19, 149-172.

Segal, H. A. (1954). Initial psychiatric findings of recently repatriated prisoners of war. American Journal of Psychiatry, 3, 358-363.

aretood2
June 14th, 2010, 05:49 AM
You do know that actually makes your argument weaker don't you? Being 90% sure that doing something bad will have good results justifies the action far more than only being 20% sure that it'll have good results.

Also, how do you know that torturing people will get you answers quicker. Since you want to see my sources, which I will provide, I want to see some of your sources. And episodes of 24 don't count.



It's been well established that people will confess to crimes that they did not commit when under pressure.

Here are a few sources:

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A, & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”:
A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29 (2), 211-227.

Kassin, S. & Kiechel, K. (1996). The Social Psychology of False Confessions. Psychological Science, 7 (3), 125-128.

Redlich, A. D. (2010). False confessions, false guilty pleas: Similarities and differences. Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations, 49-66.

Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, P. J. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human communication research, 36 (1), 82-102.

Oh and torture actually interferes with memory so you're less likely to get the truth.

O'Mara, S. (2009). Torturing the brain: On the folk psychology and folk neurobiology motivating "enhanced and coercive interrogation techniques". Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (12), 497-500.

Ray, W.J.et al. (2006) Decoupling neural networks from reality: dissociative experiences in torture victims are reflected in abnormal brain waves in left frontal cortex. Psychological Science, 17, 825–829

Catani, C.et al. (2009) Pattern of cortical activation during processing of aversive stimuli in traumatized survivors of war and torture. Clinincal Neuroscience, 259, 340–351.



That makes no sense. Just because you're making decisions that the rest of the world don't agree with doesn't mean that you can make any decision you want. You still have to make the decisions that have the greatest probability of getting results. Even if you're torturing people, you have to pick the kind of torture that is most effective in getting people to talk. You can't just use every torture technique in the Inquisition handbook and hope that you'll get some results.



Wheatley, R. D., Ursano, R. J. (1982). Serial personality evaluations of repatriated U.S. Air Force Southeast Asia POWs. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53 (3), 251-257.

Schein, E. (1956). The Chinese indoctrination program for prisoners of war: A study of attempted "brainwashing." Psycholoogy, 19, 149-172.

Segal, H. A. (1954). Initial psychiatric findings of recently repatriated prisoners of war. American Journal of Psychiatry, 3, 358-363.

Good thing I have a University database to look those papers up :D

myhelix
June 14th, 2010, 05:54 AM
Torture is NEVER right!

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 07:54 AM
POW's from WW2 and Vietnam war did not live in the same American Culture as we do now. During the American Mexican war, for example, there were cases of entire units defecting to the Mexican army. People were not very pleased with the country during the Vietnam War, in rallies the North Korean flag was flown in place of the American flag countless times. It was the birth of flag burning, and many soldiers were sent of to fight a war they did not believe in against their will. I'd hardly think that the social structure was inductive to the whole "America is the best" mentality.that proves america can afford to have "hippies", what where the vietnamese non-coms doing................... trying to avoid getting shot and gathering enough food to live on!! it's a piece of pi$$ to have a "sit-in" when your belly is full and rounds aren't thudding into your friends.:mckay:


The Social stress that the nation went through in that war has left scars that still live on today in a variety of ways that I think most people don't realize. It left an entire generation disgusted of the country. Yet these people who lacked national pride and purpose did not give up information under torture.

non of them?


You do know that actually makes your argument weaker don't you? Being 90% sure that doing something bad will have good results justifies the action far more than only being 20% sure that it'll have good results.

Also, how do you know that torturing people will get you answers quicker. Since you want to see my sources, which I will provide, I want to see some of your sources. And episodes of 24 don't count.
real person do? from torture thread in s01e18 subversion folder.

I would fold under torture. Be stuffed with pain man. I like my testicles just the way they are thank you very much and I would very much prefer if they didn't become acquainted with that nasty looking sharp medical looking tool.

So yes, I am sure there are a lot more people out there who, like me, would choose Testicles over Information.
probably not:sheppardanime31:
pray you don't become my enemy phenom.............. now i know where to start:anubis: kidding for those mods lacking a sense of humour.


It's been well established that people will confess to crimes that they did not commit when under pressure.

Here are a few sources:

*deleted for space*

Oh and torture actually interferes with memory so you're less likely to get the truth.

tell me when i ever said it was my FIRST AND ONLY option........................ FIRST AND ONLY just to be clear.


Even if you're torturing people, you have to pick the kind of torture that is most effective in getting people to talk. You can't just use every torture technique in the Inquisition handbook and hope that you'll get some results.
then we agree, torture might work;)

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 08:07 AM
rlr,

Accepting for purpose of argument only that torture may work I would assert the likelihood or torture working is not high enough to justify the risks to innocents.

Kaiphantom
June 14th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Having cameras everywhere(including your bedroom) and initiating martial law works to drastically lower the crime right, but there is a reason why we don't. I'll the "why" as an exercise to the reader.

Giantevilhead
June 14th, 2010, 08:24 AM
that proves america can afford to have "hippies", what where the vietnamese non-coms doing................... trying to avoid getting shot and gathering enough food to live on!! it's a piece of pi$$ to have a "sit-in" when your belly is full and rounds aren't thudding into your friends.:mckay:

Are you trying to prove that torture was effective or that America sucks? Do you even know what you're arguing about?


non of them?

In the few times that it did work, it didn't work fast enough or it didn't get useful intelligence. One of the most famous examples is John McCain, who broke after several years of torture and gave the Viet Con information about his mission. So if you want to stop that ticking clock bomb 5 years after it explodes, then torture is the way.


real person do? from torture thread in s01e18 subversion folder.

What? That doesn't make any sense.


tell me when i ever said it was my FIRST AND ONLY option........................ FIRST AND ONLY just to be clear.

You're just going completely off topic here. When did I ever accuse you of using torture as your first and only option? Also, for something to even be an option, it has to have some chance of working. It's like if you lost the keys to your house and you can't get the door open after trying everything you can think of and you decide that your last option is the burn the house down.


then we agree, torture might work;)

Yes, it might work, just like how playing black jack while blindfolded in Vegas might win you $10 million.

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 08:57 AM
rlr,

Accepting for purpose of argument only that torture may workit'll work with phenom. so saying it 'may' work is false. it can and does. not all the time though. and i never said it did.

my mobile phone can make/recieve calls..................... except when the battery's dead.................. or theres no signal...................... or sim cards borked......................... or i haven't paid the bill.
when all those things are sorted though it DOES make/recieve calls.................... go figure!!



I would assert the likelihood or torture working is not high enough to justify the risks to innocents.

you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, innocent eggs i might point out, but despite my callous snuffing out of a single 'chick', the omelette tastes good at the end.

and again i point out that torture never has been or ever will be my first and only option

i've changed the colour, the size, underlined and bolded that last bit because non of you seem able to comprehend it:mckay:

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 09:21 AM
rlr,

Will it work with Phenom if he doesn't know what the interrogator needs to know? Or would it work to get Phenom to say what the interrogator wants to hear, true or not, to get the torture to stop?

You presume the right person will be tortured. That's a huge presumption.

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 09:56 AM
Are you trying to prove that torture was effective or that America sucks? Do you even know what you're arguing about?
it was a reply to something you obviously didn't read, not posted by you so its probably of no interest to you.

In the few times that it did work, it didn't work fast enough or it didn't get useful intelligence. One of the most famous examples is John McCain, who broke after several years of torture and gave the Viet Con information about his mission. So if you want to stop that ticking clock bomb 5 years after it explodes, then torture is the way.then they weren't really torturing him for his mission info, at the start maybe but if the missions gone wrong, it'll likely be scrapped. and yes 5 years later is pointless and a waste of time. i don't disagree.

and he should have been voted in if he was so awesome.

also its not unlike presidential candidates to exagerate(lie), Hillary Clinton lands under fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rtBUfc6YA)


What? That doesn't make any sense.
why not, a real person has said that he would give any info he had to avoid torture. proves to me it can work. whether he has the info or not is a different matter.


You're just going completely off topic here. When did I ever accuse you of using torture as your first and only option? Also, for something to even be an option, it has to have some chance of working. It's like if you lost the keys to your house and you can't get the door open after trying everything you can think of and you decide that your last option is the burn the house down.
you keep providing me with examples of torture i don't condone and then expect me to justify it. and its not like the house burning thing at all. you could go for president with that exageration level;)

Yes, it might work, just like how playing black jack while blindfolded in Vegas might win you $10 million.
you're an expert in probabilities now too!! then you should know what the probability of changing my mind is, based on your say so. a person who can't seem to be clear about whether there is no, little or some chance of it working.

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 09:59 AM
rlr,

Will it work with Phenom if he doesn't know what the interrogator needs to know? Or would it work to get Phenom to say what the interrogator wants to hear, true or not, to get the torture to stop?

You presume the right person will be tortured. That's a huge presumption.

not quite! but you presume i wouldn't judge each situation on its own merits and decide accordingly.

it's not like i'm forming some code of practice for torturers here, i gave my reasons/criteria to do it.

the evidence or lack thereof would help me decide.

aretood2
June 14th, 2010, 11:53 AM
that proves america can afford to have "hippies", what where the vietnamese non-coms doing................... trying to avoid getting shot and gathering enough food to live on!! it's a piece of pi$$ to have a "sit-in" when your belly is full and rounds aren't thudding into your friends.:mckay:

You missed the point by like ten lightyears, or my post just went over your head. What I was trying to do is point out how your previous comment about American soldiers having a stronger will cuase of the "America is the greatest" attitude that we have today is flawed. It is flawed because Vietnam troops did not have said attitude for the reasons I explained to you.

Giantevilhead
June 14th, 2010, 12:03 PM
then they weren't really torturing him for his mission info, at the start maybe but if the missions gone wrong, it'll likely be scrapped. and yes 5 years later is pointless and a waste of time. i don't disagree.

and he should have been voted in if he was so awesome.

also its not unlike presidential candidates to exagerate(lie), Hillary Clinton lands under fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rtBUfc6YA)

They did torture him for mission info. It didn't work and then they kept on torturing him. As for McCain exaggerating, his accounts were corroborated by fellow POW's. Accounts of other American POW's, as well as Vietnamese (non-Americans) who were captured and tortured by the Viet Con, detailed many similar events and outcomes.


why not, a real person has said that he would give any info he had to avoid torture. proves to me it can work. whether he has the info or not is a different matter.

Rush and Telford are not real people. They're television characters.

Also, provide some empirical evidence that torture can be used to extract useful intelligence in a timely fashion.


you keep providing me with examples of torture i don't condone and then expect me to justify it. and its not like the house burning thing at all. you could go for president with that exageration level;)

It's called a hyperbole, look it up in the dictionary.


you're an expert in probabilities now too!! then you should know what the probability of changing my mind is, based on your say so. a person who can't seem to be clear about whether there is no, little or some chance of it working.

Do you even understand what logic is?

As for the probability of torture working, depending on the goal of torture, the kind of torture used, and the amount of time given, the probability that it will achieve its goal varies. If you want to break someone and there are no constraints on the kind of torture you can use or time limitations then yes, torture has a reasonable probability of achieving that goal. However, I will make this very clear, if you want to use torture to extract immediately actionable intelligence in a very short amount of time, a week or less, then the probability of torture working is so low that it might as well be zero. Your idea of using torture, even as a last resort, to get useful intelligence at the last minute is wrong. It doesn't work. It has been empirically proven. Just read some of the peer-reviewed articles that were published in scientific journals I referenced.

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 12:54 PM
They did torture him for mission info. It didn't work and then they kept on torturing him. As for McCain exaggerating, his accounts were corroborated by fellow POW's. Accounts of other American POW's, as well as Vietnamese (non-Americans) who were captured and tortured by the Viet Con, detailed many similar events and outcomes.

so you're now posting "proof" that you consider unreliable?!?!?!


Rush and Telford are not real people. They're television characters.

Also, provide some empirical evidence that torture can be used to extract useful intelligence in a timely fashion. provide me with the name of everyone ever tortured, every torturer, their locations at specific times, a time machine, and your address, and i'll bring some too you.
the few cases posted don't even add up to 1% of everyone ever tortured and it NEVER(or sometimes when it suits you) works.

thats like flipping a coin once and saying it will ALWAYS land the same way.


It's called a hyperbole, look it up in the dictionary.

don't need too, but you don't need to post it either, i don't partake in torture therefor any incidents you post about are not any example of how much of a ******* i am. i never justified or condoned them in any way. you want me too but i can't for my reasons that i've adequetly explained several times. you're just not getting that.

and if we can't use hypothetical arguments to justify our case, you can't use hyperbole to make torture more shocking and horrific to those still 'on the fence'.


Do you even understand what logic is?
is it logical to post statements obtained under torture conditions, as proof of something when you've stated that the torture makes it unreliable.......................... no, i have no idea about that kind of flawed logic. thankfully.:mckay:


As for the probability of torture working, depending on the goal of torture, the kind of torture used, and the amount of time given, the probability that it will achieve its goal varies. If you want to break someone and there are no constraints on the kind of torture you can use or time limitations then yes, torture has a reasonable probability of achieving that goal. However, I will make this very clear, if you want to use torture to extract immediately actionable intelligence in a very short amount of time, a week or less, then the probability of torture working is so low that it might as well be zero. Your idea of using torture, even as a last resort, to get useful intelligence at the last minute is wrong. It doesn't work. It has been empirically proven. Just read some of the peer-reviewed articles that were published in scientific journals I referenced.

that is an outright lie. "empirically proven" :jack_new_anime06:

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 01:42 PM
You missed the point by like ten lightyears, or my post just went over your head. What I was trying to do is point out how your previous comment about American soldiers having a stronger will cuase of the "America is the greatest" attitude that we have today is flawed. It is flawed because Vietnam troops did not have said attitude for the reasons I explained to you.
it was your point that americans are somehow a good representation of the world population as whole. they/you certainly aren't!
i'm sure some were unhappy with the situation, could have dodged the draft or deserted if they felt THAT strongly about it, guess they didn't.
some of you would rather die than torture someone and thats way worse than living in canada.( maybe:D)

and i agree, its not the greatest country in the world and its the flaw of americans to believe that. i'm not from there:) britain isn't that good either but its better than some warzone in africa.

but i still see/hear americans in the UK say stuff like " you can't treat me like this, BECAUSE i'm american!!!" the fact that whatever it is might work differently in another country hasn't even occured to them, the fact that there are actually other ways than american ways surprises them.
but its still 'because' of their nationality they expect better treatment rather than the same as everyone else.

america is the only country i know with a slogan............"land of the free, home of the brave" like the free and brave can't/shouldn't live anywhere else!! ............... thats almost as arrogant as i am:D

saying 'no' to selling out your side is the easiest thing in the world to do, i'd say it even if i had sold them out................ not like your gonna torture me if you don't believe it.
i don't expect any more or less from an american in the same situation, which means all the 'no's are suspect to say the least..................... gonna tell me you guys don't ever lie now too?

Giantevilhead
June 14th, 2010, 01:44 PM
so you're now posting "proof" that you consider unreliable?!?!?!

When did I ever say that I considered them unreliable?


provide me with the name of everyone ever tortured, every torturer, their locations at specific times, a time machine, and your address, and i'll bring some too you.
the few cases posted don't even add up to 1% of everyone ever tortured and it NEVER(or sometimes when it suits you) works.

thats like flipping a coin once and saying it will ALWAYS land the same way.

You do know how science and statistics work don't you? Do you think GE tests every light bulb ever produced to ensure that they all work? Do you think doctors gave aspirin to every person in the world who have heart disease to prove that aspirin can lower the risk of heart attacks? Do you think psychologists interviewed every person in the world to create the measures of depression? Do you think physicists went to every place in the universe and measured the speed of light to make sure that it was really a constant?

All of science is based on data collected on a small sample of the total population. Predictions are made based on probability distributions of the results of analysis.


don't need too, but you don't need to post it either, i don't partake in torture therefor any incidents you post about are not any example of how much of a ******* i am. i never justified or condoned them in any way. you want me too but i can't for my reasons that i've adequetly explained several times. you're just not getting that.

and if we can't use hypothetical arguments to justify our case, you can't use hyperbole to make torture more shocking and horrific to those still 'on the fence'.

Are you in elementary school? If I wanted to argue with someone who responds with, "I don't have to prove anything because I don't want to," I'll talk to a six year old.

is it logical to post statements obtained under torture conditions, as proof of something when you've stated that the torture makes it unreliable.......................... no, i have no idea about that kind of flawed logic. thankfully.:mckay:

So posting something that proves that torture is unreliable doesn't prove that torture is unreliable? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.


that is an outright lie. "empirically proven" :jack_new_anime06:

You're wrong. See how easy it is to just say something without providing any evidence? As I said before, read some of the peer-reviewed articles that were published in scientific journals I referenced earlier.

aretood2
June 14th, 2010, 01:46 PM
it was your point that americans are somehow a good representation of the world population as whole. they/you certainly aren't!
i'm sure some were unhappy with the situation, could have dodged the draft or deserted if they felt THAT strongly about it, guess they didn't.
some of you would rather die than torture someone and thats way worse than living in canada.( maybe:D)

and i agree, its not the greatest country in the world and its the flaw of americans to believe that. i'm not from there:) britain isn't that good either but its better than some warzone in africa.

but i still see/hear americans in the UK say stuff like " you can't treat me like this, BECAUSE i'm american!!!" the fact that whatever it is might work differently in another country hasn't even occured to them, the fact that there are actually other ways than american ways surprises them.
but its still 'because' of their nationality they expect better treatment rather than the same as everyone else.

america is the only country i know with a slogan............"land of the free, home of the brave" like the free and brave can't/shouldn't live anywhere else!! ............... thats almost as arrogant as i am:D

saying 'no' to selling out your side is the easiest thing in the world to do, i'd say it even if i had sold them out................ not like your gonna torture me if you don't believe it.

Overgeneralizing much? Rule Britania? Have you seen Mexican slogans? How about Chinese slogans? National pride is not limited to Americans you know. But this is off topic anyway.

rlr149
June 14th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Overgeneralizing much? Rule Britania? Have you seen Mexican slogans? How about Chinese slogans? National pride is not limited to Americans you know. But this is off topic anyway.
---------

britain isn't that good either

no, not rule britania at all,
well done proving you read what you wanted into something that plainly said the opposite.
When did I ever say that I considered them unreliable?
did you not say : "Torture doesn't work reliably" in your post #163.
therefore any statement taken under it is unreliable.
IF (and its a big IF) i believe you then i shouldn't believe it at all, and thinking ALL torture produces the results i want is ridiculous/untrue. so at the very best it might be 50% but i doubt its even as high as 20%. its not 0% either though.

would really help if you could remember what you wrote in a post on the same page as this one.


You do know how science and statistics work don't you?
no expert

Do you think GE tests every light bulb ever produced to ensure that they all work? no, but i also don't think they ONLY tested the last 100 off the entire production line since the company was founded(General Electric i presume?)i bet they refined the process first before commiting to full production.

Do you think doctors gave aspirin to every person in the world who have heart disease to prove that aspirin can lower the risk of heart attacks?
again no, though if one innocent person takes it for heart desease then dies of an allergic reaction to aspirin, will you be crying about that quite so much?

Do you think psychologists interviewed every person in the world to create the measures of depression? your posts make a lot more sense now you mention depression;) manic? or just plain old 'vanilla' depression?

Do you think physicists went to every place in the universe and measured the speed of light to make sure that it was really a constant?its not called the THEORY of relativity for nothing. go on, say you know how science will 'pan out' till the end of time if you want, i won't say that though.


All of science is based on data collected on a small sample of the total population.
good science is based on data collected from all possible sources upto and including the total population, though in practicality terms thats unlikely.
Predictions are made based on probability distributions of the results of analysis.
and better predictions are made with more data. and the best ones are made with ALL the data, can't really be considered 'predictions' at that point though, and i don't deny thats its nigh on impossible to gather ALL the data.


Are you in elementary school? If I wanted to argue with someone who responds with, "I don't have to prove anything because I don't want to," I'll talk to a six year old.because you want me to prove torture works 100% of the time, and i don't agree, i don't agree that it never works either like you sometimes say, when the mood takes you.


So posting something that proves that torture is unreliable doesn't prove that torture is unreliable? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
no, telling me torture is unreliable then saying "heres some statements from torture victims as proof" doesn't make sense. thats what you've done!


You're wrong. See how easy it is to just say something without providing any evidence? As I said before, read some of the peer-reviewed articles that were published in scientific journals I referenced earlier.i did, they were interesting but still not a good representation of, how many total years of human history that include torture? i'll be nice and say its only 10000 years even though we've been about for nearer 50000 ish, and i'll be nice again and say you provided 150 years worth of data, though its more like 100.

10000 and 150(and very much in your favour)
you provided 1.5% of the data and feel you're making highly accurate predictions!!!
going off the more acurate figures:0.2% or 0.3%
laughable. if it weren't for the fact you're the same species as me:(

Kaiphantom
June 15th, 2010, 08:40 AM
Hey, rlr49, you know what also works 100% to safeguard the well-being of people? Killing them all. If everyone is dead, then no one can be harmed! The ends justify the means, right?

Or, if you don't want to kill everyone, how about we just lock everyone up and tightly control them? No crime at all, no terrorist acts. Ends justify the means, to keep everyone safe, right?

rlr149
June 15th, 2010, 09:48 PM
Hey, rlr49, you know what also works 100% to safeguard the well-being of people? Killing them all. If everyone is dead, then no one can be harmed! The ends justify the means, right?

Or, if you don't want to kill everyone, how about we just lock everyone up and tightly control them? No crime at all, no terrorist acts. Ends justify the means, to keep everyone safe, right?
somebodies been reading judge death/dredd from 2000AD, or more likely just looked at the pictures.

my quote that says anything works 100% of the time?

there isn't one, because i didn't say that.

as a matter of interest, how many prisoners leave prison only to re offend? prison must not work reliably then................. may as well not use it at all!!

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 16th, 2010, 03:55 AM
rlr,


somebodies been reading judge death/dredd from 2000AD, or more likely just looked at the pictures.

my quote that says anything works 100% of the time?

there isn't one, because i didn't say that.

as a matter of interest, how many prisoners leave prison only to re offend? prison must not work reliably then................. may as well not use it at all!!

Prison does work to keep people convicted of crimes from engaging in criminal acts against the general public. Most prisoners don't escape from prison so most of the time it is effective in its goal of separating the general public from convicted criminals for the duration of the criminals sentence. Can you say that torture has anywhere close to the same rate of success in obtaining reliable actionable intelligence from its victims? I sincerely doubt it.

rlr149
June 16th, 2010, 12:34 PM
rlr,



Prison does work to keep people convicted of crimes from engaging in criminal acts against the general public. Most prisoners don't escape from prison so most of the time it is effective in its goal of separating the general public from convicted criminals for the duration of the criminals sentence. Can you say that torture has anywhere close to the same rate of success in obtaining reliable actionable intelligence from its victims? I sincerely doubt it.

prison is also supposed to be a detterent from commiting crimes after you leave too. and it does not work reliably.

and no i can't say that, i'm not saying EVERYONE, MOST, HALF or ALOT has/have to be tortured though, despite your/others insistance that i am/have.
stated it several times now!! quite plainly!

have some binary if the english is troubling you,

01101001001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000110001101101111 01101110011001000110111101101110011001010010000001110100011011110111001001110100 01110101011100100110010100100000001100010011000000110000001001010010000001101111 01100110001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110100011010010110110101100101

or morse code,
.. / -.. --- -. .----. - / -.-. --- -. -.. --- -. . / - --- .-. - ..- .-. . / .---- ----- ----- .--. . .-. -.-. . -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / - .. -- .

i'd try semaphore too but you're not 'line of sight' and i don't have the flags.

and the fact i'm not using torture on you till you agree with me suggests i don't need to use it "all the time";)

aretood2
June 16th, 2010, 02:47 PM
prison is also supposed to be a detterent from commiting crimes after you leave too. and it does not work reliably.

and no i can't say that, i'm not saying EVERYONE, MOST, HALF or ALOT has/have to be tortured though, despite your/others insistance that i am/have.
stated it several times now!! quite plainly!

have some binary if the english is troubling you,

01101001001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000110001101101111 01101110011001000110111101101110011001010010000001110100011011110111001001110100 01110101011100100110010100100000001100010011000000110000001001010010000001101111 01100110001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110100011010010110110101100101

or morse code,
.. / -.. --- -. .----. - / -.-. --- -. -.. --- -. . / - --- .-. - ..- .-. . / .---- ----- ----- .--. . .-. -.-. . -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / - .. -- .

i'd try semaphore too but you're not 'line of sight' and i don't have the flags.

and the fact i'm not using torture on you till you agree with me suggests i don't need to use it "all the time";)

I think the problem most have is that you are calling it "right" not needed. Sure may sound like semantics...but to many it is not. There may be scenarios where torture can be used without committing a great evil. But the point of Morality or the point of right and wrong is not to address what lies in the grey, but to act as general guidelines. General guidelines, or rule of thumb if you will, do have their exceptions.

Torture is, as a rule of thumb, wrong. however there may come a time where the circumstance is at such a place where it must be used. But it's necessity does not clear it from its "uncleanliness." Cops are forced to shot at people, and this tends to leave them scared. Why? Because they did something "wrong." However it doesn't make them bad guys, they had no choice in the matter and to not act would have constituted a greater evil.

So Torture in certain situations is the lesser of two evils.

rlr149
June 16th, 2010, 05:40 PM
I think the problem most have is that you are calling it "right" not needed. Sure may sound like semantics...but to many it is not. There may be scenarios where torture can be used without committing a great evil. But the point of Morality or the point of right and wrong is not to address what lies in the grey, but to act as general guidelines. General guidelines, or rule of thumb if you will, do have their exceptions.

Torture is, as a rule of thumb, wrong. however there may come a time where the circumstance is at such a place where it must be used. But it's necessity does not clear it from its "uncleanliness." Cops are forced to shot at people, and this tends to leave them scared. Why? Because they did something "wrong." However it doesn't make them bad guys, they had no choice in the matter and to not act would have constituted a greater evil.

So Torture in certain situations is the lesser of two evils.

i never said it was right either, said i wasn't in favour of it in fact. if i make it to my deathbed and i haven't killed and/or tortured anyone.................. i'll be pretty damned happy about it, no regrets at all. i actively avoid jobs where i might have to kill/torture people............. what more can really be expected of me? if i thought it was "right" i'd make some effort to do it.

i can only make the decision to do it based on the information i have in any particular situation........... thats why i said it was a "judgement call". one i would make IN the situation, not prior to it.
as i can't use a hypothetical situation i'll go with an example of 'being attacked by a non specific dog'(it happens)............. i can't answer now what i would do........... if at the time it turns out to be a chihuaha(spelling on that might be wrong) i'd probably just give it a kick, IF it was actually biting, nothing major/ damaging if possible but enough to dissuade it................... if it was a rotweiler biting, i'd cause as much pain as required upto and including killing it to make it stop. same for both if it was attacking anybody else. and i am a major dog lover so i wouldn't be happy about it either way.:( my preference would be a nice friendly dog:)
one situation with two different outcomes based on the specifics at the time. now do you get me?

and anyone who says inflicting pain can't get you what you want, hasn't been mugged, i haven't either, but i know a woman who has and she said 'no' at the start and then got punched in the face............... what was her next answer do you think?

aretood2
June 16th, 2010, 07:22 PM
i never said it was right either, said i wasn't in favour of it in fact. if i make it to my deathbed and i haven't killed and/or tortured anyone.................. i'll be pretty damned happy about it, no regrets at all. i actively avoid jobs where i might have to kill/torture people............. what more can really be expected of me? if i thought it was "right" i'd make some effort to do it.

i can only make the decision to do it based on the information i have in any particular situation........... thats why i said it was a "judgement call". one i would make IN the situation, not prior to it.
as i can't use a hypothetical situation i'll go with an example of 'being attacked by a non specific dog'(it happens)............. i can't answer now what i would do........... if at the time it turns out to be a chihuaha(spelling on that might be wrong) i'd probably just give it a kick, IF it was actually biting, nothing major/ damaging if possible but enough to dissuade it................... if it was a rotweiler biting, i'd cause as much pain as required upto and including killing it to make it stop. same for both if it was attacking anybody else. and i am a major dog lover so i wouldn't be happy about it either way.:( my preference would be a nice friendly dog:)
one situation with two different outcomes based on the specifics at the time. now do you get me?

and anyone who says inflicting pain can't get you what you want, hasn't been mugged, i haven't either, but i know a woman who has and she said 'no' at the start and then got punched in the face............... what was her next answer do you think?

However, to prevent or limit, any over zealous activities it is necessary to be clear that torture will not be allowed. If the people involved understand that they just can't torture anyone in any situation, they would be more prone to what you are saying. As opposed to just telling them, "Do it when needed." Thus the General guideline should be, "Don't torture or else." If a situation is so dire so drastic, I am sure that the interrogator would be willing to take the consequences...and then there are ways that we could provide for those who use it "honestly" to escape any real punishment.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Hey, rlr49, you know what also works 100% to safeguard the well-being of people? Killing them all. If everyone is dead, then no one can be harmed! The ends justify the means, right?

Or, if you don't want to kill everyone, how about we just lock everyone up and tightly control them? No crime at all, no terrorist acts. Ends justify the means, to keep everyone safe, right?

Mailed your monthly donation to AQ yet?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 17th, 2010, 03:59 AM
rlr,

So, if you are being mugged, to use your analogy, if you could lie to get away from the mugger or get the mugging to stop, would you? Additionally, does the success of the mugging depend upon your honest responses to the mugger's questions?

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 05:43 AM
rlr,

So, if you are being mugged, to use your analogy, if you could lie to get away from the mugger or get the mugging to stop, would you? Additionally, does the success of the mugging depend upon your honest responses to the mugger's questions?

What kind of mugger asks questions?

Deevil
June 17th, 2010, 05:56 AM
What kind of mugger asks questions?

A drunk or high one. Seriously, I am speaking from experience here.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 06:01 AM
A drunk or high one. Seriously, I am speaking from experience here.

Well this is interesting :P

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 17th, 2010, 07:51 AM
Mailed your monthly donation to AQ yet?

I hope you're not accusing Kaiphantom of being Al Qaeda. That's a very serious accusation to be making and while I definitely don't agree with everything Kai posts, it's a particularly vile thing to be throwing around.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 07:55 AM
I hope you're not accusing Kaiphantom of being Al Qaeda. That's a very serious accusation to be making and while I definitely don't agree with everything Kai posts, it's a particularly vile thing to be throwing around.

I was wondering what he/she meant by that...

Kaiphantom
June 17th, 2010, 08:50 AM
Mailed your monthly donation to AQ yet?

Seriously? You know, sometimes I have doubts about my arguments, wondering if someone else's viewpoint is more logically constructed.

Then someone posts an ad-hominen attack instead of debating the merits of the argument, and I feel more confident. If my argument went over your head, allow me to clarify: If the ends justify the means, as with torture, then why not logically take it further? Declaring martial law, setting curfews, cameras everywhere, etc. and you protect your people, too!

The reason why we don't, is because we have declared that people have rights, and deserve the quality of life that they can make for themselves: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" A line from the constitution. Also mentioned in there is something about avoiding "cruel and unusual punishments."

They were written in for a damn good reason, so before you torture, you may want to understand why the intellectual and moral reason the founding fathers put it in.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 10:54 AM
Seriously? You know, sometimes I have doubts about my arguments, wondering if someone else's viewpoint is more logically constructed.

Then someone posts an ad-hominen attack instead of debating the merits of the argument, and I feel more confident. If my argument went over your head, allow me to clarify: If the ends justify the means, as with torture, then why not logically take it further? Declaring martial law, setting curfews, cameras everywhere, etc. and you protect your people, too!

The reason why we don't, is because we have declared that people have rights, and deserve the quality of life that they can make for themselves: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" A line from the constitution. Also mentioned in there is something about avoiding "cruel and unusual punishments."

They were written in for a damn good reason, so before you torture, you may want to understand why the intellectual and moral reason the founding fathers put it in.

The way America is ran today has nothing to do with the founding fathers. And the people on this forum are not the ones torturing anyone. You're going to two extremes, here. How can you compare torturing a terrorist, to basically locking up your whole nation? The enemy isn't the people of your country, it's the people trying to blow it up. You want to protect those trying to destroy your freedom? Be my guest. There's already cameras everywhere and the NSA can listen to any phone they like. The US isn't the Land of the Free it used to be.

If everything the founding fathers said still applied today and was considered in the way the government runs the country, they wouldn't claim that the US is a Christian nation, and wouldn't mix politics with religion as they do today. All the founding fathers were very much against Catholicism, so hey, that means we should ban Christianity. Right?

In the context of torturing a terrorist or detainee, the current law makes it legal if it's done and sanctioned by the CIA. Until the law changes, it's good enough for me. And I hope the current laws stay the way they are. It's needed to have some people that are willing to do what is necessary to protect people who would prefer remaining quiet and watch their country fall, all for the sake of morals. I hope your high moral standards serve you well. Meanwhile, there's people risking their lives and doing things that their conscience disagrees with, in order for other people to keep their freedom.

Having pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 11:11 AM
The way America is ran today has nothing to do with the founding fathers. And the people on this forum are not the ones torturing anyone. You're going to two extremes, here. How can you compare torturing a terrorist, to basically locking up your whole nation? The enemy isn't the people of your country, it's the people trying to blow it up. You want to protect those trying to destroy your freedom? Be my guest. There's already cameras everywhere and the NSA can listen to any phone they like. The US isn't the Land of the Free it used to be.

That's IF you have a terrorist. And this is OUR country. I am guessing you are not American by the language you are using, so I'll say that we will Defend our selves how we see fit, and if we wish to have the higher moral ground then we will do so. And this is why this debate is held all over the place, because this is a Christian nation and right/wrong matters here a lot, or at least I like to think it does.


If everything the founding fathers said still applied today and was considered in the way the government runs the country, they wouldn't claim that the US is a Christian nation, and wouldn't mix politics with religion as they do today. All the founding fathers were very much against Catholicism, so hey, that means we should ban Christianity. Right?

As a Protestant I take offense in that, Catholicism does not encompass all of Christianity pass or present. Maybe Liberals in this country don't care about them, but the rest of us do care about the founders. They never instituted anti Catholic into our laws, on the contrary, the first amendment prohibits any legal action against religion.


In the context of torturing a terrorist or detainee, the current law makes it legal if it's done and sanctioned by the CIA. Until the law changes, it's good enough for me. And I hope the current laws stay the way they are. It's needed to have some people that are willing to do what is necessary to protect people who would prefer remaining quiet and watch their country fall, all for the sake of morals. I hope your high moral standards serve you well. Meanwhile, there's people risking their lives and doing things that their conscience disagrees with, in order for other people to keep their freedom.

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The current law is unconstitutional, thus why there is an outcry about it to begin with. And once again, we aren't just a bunch of cowards who hide behind barbaric tendencies just because morals are inconvenient. And honestly, so far seriel killers have proven themselves to be more dangerous to us, 9/11 not withstanding. Not to mentioned that conventional techniques have kept us safe from any more such attacks. To become savages in the name of security is not needed. We need not give up our God nor his law to live free and secure.


Having pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.
Our laws defend the accused, not the guilty. Our laws have protected thousands of innocent people from being punished for something that they did not commit. I'd prefer the way our system works to that of North Korea or Nazi Germany thank you very much. And don't let the proverbial door hit you on the way out of of our country.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 17th, 2010, 11:33 AM
...
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The current law is unconstitutional, thus why there is an outcry about it to begin with. And once again, we aren't just a bunch of cowards who hide behind barbaric tendencies just because morals are inconvenient. And honestly, so far seriel killers have proven themselves to be more dangerous to us, 9/11 not withstanding. Not to mentioned that conventional techniques have kept us safe from any more such attacks. To become savages in the name of security is not needed. We need not give up our God nor his law to live free and secure.

Our laws defend the accused, not the guilty. Our laws have protected thousands of innocent people from being punished for something that they did not commit. I'd prefer the way our system works to that of North Korea or Nazi Germany thank you very much. And don't let the proverbial door hit you on the way out of of our country.You've raised really good points (although you didn't need to make the Liberals slam, there are lots of people that are liberals and believe in their country as well, they just believe differently than you).

The Western (and yes, Demerzel, that includes Canada, where you're from if your location is correct) concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, protects every single one of us, innocent, guilty and merely accused from tyranny. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta long before it was penned by the US's founding fathers, which doesn't make it any the less valid. And no, pity for the the guilty, as in those proven guilty in a court of law, isn't treason to anyone, never mind the innocent. If it's anything, it's the mark of a decent country. I'll avoid mentioning a christian country because christianity hasn't cornered the market on decency, but the ideal is the same. That is why we treat prisoners, as in - those found guilty - humanely. It's why we try to rehabilitate them and eventually return them to society.

You're more likely to die of doctor error or a car accident or get struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist so the fear-mongering is interesting. The terrorism-equated-with-nationalism/patriotism card gets flashed so often, I just shake my head every time it comes up. You can not be afraid of Teh Terrorists!! and still be a good citizen, trust me :D </sarcasm>

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 11:33 AM
As a Protestant I take offense in that, Catholicism does not encompass all of Christianity pass or present. Maybe Liberals in this country don't care about them, but the rest of us do care about the founders. They never instituted anti Catholic into our laws, on the contrary, the first amendment prohibits any legal action against religion.


Written by James Madison, protege of Thomas Jefferson, chronicler of the Constitutional Convention and Father of the Constitution, Fourth President of the United States....

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Experience witnessed that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

I'm sure God was very supportive of your country, when you dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. Murdering people by the tens of thousands is fine, but torture is never useful. Yet while YOUR God specifically says not to kill, for any reason, your "Christian" nation ignores it. Like every other religious nation, really. It's amazing how we keep only what we like, from the bible, and ignore the rest.

I'm also sure your God was very supportive when the people claiming to speak in his name on earth tortured and killed tens of thousands of women throughout history simply because they wanted to be free or didn't agree with what they said.

Written by John Adams, statesman, diplomat, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Vice-President under Washington, and Second President of the United States....

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

I could post a lot more, from many more founding fathers. But you get my point.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Written by James Madison, protege of Thomas Jefferson, chronicler of the Constitutional Convention and Father of the Constitution, Fourth President of the United States....

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Experience witnessed that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

I'm sure God was very supportive of your country, when you dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. Murdering people by the tens of thousands is fine, but torture is never useful. Yet while YOUR God specifically says not to kill, for any reason, your "Christian" nation ignores it. Like every other religious nation, really. It's amazing how we keep only what we like, from the bible, and ignore the rest.

I'm also sure your God was very supportive when the people claiming to speak in his name on earth tortured and killed tens of thousands of women throughout history simply because they wanted to be free or didn't agree with what they said.

Written by John Adams, statesman, diplomat, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Vice-President under Washington, and Second President of the United States....

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

I could post a lot more, from many more founding fathers. But you get my point.

You failed to note that they were talking about organized religion, not religion it self. mainly things that had to do with Catholics, like the cross for example.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 11:58 AM
You failed to note that they were talking about organized religion, not religion it self. mainly things that had to do with Catholics, like the cross for example.

As far as I know, only the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it was a stake, and not a cross. Do Protestants believe the same thing?

As for the quotes applying only to Catholicism, I disagree. They clearly say "Christian", which includes any and all branches of Christianity. I always found it impossibly hilarious to see all those offshoots of the Catholic church, all formed because they disagreed over a single verse of the bible. Shows that religion is about what you want to believe, not what is actually true.

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 12:00 PM
You failed to note that they were talking about organized religion, not religion it self. mainly things that had to do with Catholics, like the cross for example.

I could also point to the fact that Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible and removed all the supernatural stuff from it, all the miracles, etc etc. One of the greatest founding fathers took the work and writings of your God, and edited it all to his liking. I mean really, isn't that telling you something?

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 12:00 PM
You've raised really good points (although you didn't need to make the Liberals slam, there are lots of people that are liberals and believe in their country as well, they just believe differently than you).

The Western (and yes, Demerzel, that includes Canada, where you're from if your location is correct) concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, protects every single one of us, innocent, guilty and merely accused from tyranny. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta long before it was penned by the US's founding fathers, which doesn't make it any the less valid. And no, pity for the the guilty, as in those proven guilty in a court of law, isn't treason to anyone, never mind the innocent. If it's anything, it's the mark of a decent country. I'll avoid mentioning a christian country because christianity hasn't cornered the market on decency, but the ideal is the same. That is why we treat prisoners, as in - those found guilty - humanely. It's why we try to rehabilitate them and eventually return them to society.

You're more likely to die of doctor error or a car accident or get struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist so the fear-mongering is interesting. The terrorism-equated-with-nationalism/patriotism card gets flashed so often, I just shake my head every time it comes up. You can not be afraid of Teh Terrorists!! and still be a good citizen, trust me :D </sarcasm>

I'll was a bit quick on Liberals...I apologize for that. And not to mention I was referring to Christianity as a belief system, not an organization. Treating Criminals like animals, or even terrorists, is just a slippery slope that has been seen time and time again in history to lead to disastrous consequences for Humanity in general.

Those who use fear mongering on such a level are often not patriots but nationalists. Nationalists are nothing more than fanatics in their own right if you ask me. A true patriot cares for the country itself as much as it's safety.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with you. And to tie this back home, unless we want to start with the Us VS Them mentality that lead to lead to countless massacres in history from the random killings of the Crusaders on Christian towns in Turkey all the way to Rawanda...I'd stay away from that. Terrorists are criminals, they don't even deserve the distinction of being called enemy soldiers. Thugs hired by a rouge state to cause harm, nothing more. If we are going to throw our freedoms away just because of a bunch of thugs, then I do have to wonder what is going on here.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 12:01 PM
I could also point to the fact that Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible and removed all the supernatural stuff from it, all the miracles, etc etc. One of the greatest founding fathers took the work and writings of your God, and edited it all to his liking. I mean really, isn't that telling you something?

That we are supposed to concentrate on what he taught and not what he did. Seems like a good message if you ask me.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 12:05 PM
That we are supposed to concentrate on what he taught and not what he did. Seems like a good message if you ask me.

So pretty much, you listen to your God only when what he says is to your liking. You take what you like, and ignore the rest, like so many religions today. It's always been the great hypocrisy of the Christian religions.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 12:08 PM
So pretty much, you listen to your God only when what he says is to your liking. You take what you like, and ignore the rest, like so many religions today. It's always been the great hypocrisy of the Christian religions.

I don't care to get into an discussion with you if you are going for the whole strawman argument.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 17th, 2010, 12:09 PM
I'll was a bit quick on Liberals...I apologize for that. And not to mention I was referring to Christianity as a belief system, not an organization. Treating Criminals like animals, or even terrorists, is just a slippery slope that has been seen time and time again in history to lead to disastrous consequences for Humanity in general.

Those who use fear mongering on such a level are often not patriots but nationalists. Nationalists are nothing more than fanatics in their own right if you ask me. A true patriot cares for the country itself as much as it's safety.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with you. And to tie this back home, unless we want to start with the Us VS Them mentality that lead to lead to countless massacres in history from the random killings of the Crusaders on Christian towns in Turkey all the way to Rawanda...I'd stay away from that. Terrorists are criminals, they don't even deserve the distinction of being called enemy soldiers. Thugs hired by a rouge state to cause harm, nothing more. If we are going to throw our freedoms away just because of a bunch of thugs, then I do have to wonder what is going on here.

no worries, politics always makes people a little hot and not in the good way :)

You're right that terrorists should be treated like criminals. Don't even raise them to the level of soldiers. Treat them like the criminals they are. That being said, in our society, we sentence criminals in a court of law and we don't subject them to cruel and inhuman treatment. We accord them the same right as anyone accused, as anyone convicted. Only when we're all protected by the law are any of us protected. The moment some people can be taken outside of the protection of that law, then none of us is safe, as all of us can be accused. All of us.

And yes, there is a world of difference between a patriot and a nationalist, one of the differences being that when a patriot sees something wrong with his country or the way things are happening, a patriot will speak up and do something about it while a nationalist will brook no criticism.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 12:18 PM
You've raised really good points (although you didn't need to make the Liberals slam, there are lots of people that are liberals and believe in their country as well, they just believe differently than you).

The Western (and yes, Demerzel, that includes Canada, where you're from if your location is correct) concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, protects every single one of us, innocent, guilty and merely accused from tyranny. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta long before it was penned by the US's founding fathers, which doesn't make it any the less valid. And no, pity for the the guilty, as in those proven guilty in a court of law, isn't treason to anyone, never mind the innocent. If it's anything, it's the mark of a decent country. I'll avoid mentioning a christian country because christianity hasn't cornered the market on decency, but the ideal is the same. That is why we treat prisoners, as in - those found guilty - humanely. It's why we try to rehabilitate them and eventually return them to society.

You're more likely to die of doctor error or a car accident or get struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist so the fear-mongering is interesting. The terrorism-equated-with-nationalism/patriotism card gets flashed so often, I just shake my head every time it comes up. You can not be afraid of Teh Terrorists!! and still be a good citizen, trust me :D </sarcasm>

I'm sure all the people and the families who died in terrorist attacks throughout the world agree with you. If it doesn't happen to YOU, it doesn't happen at all, right? And you have obviously never set foot in one of the prisons in Detroit, or some other states where jails are anything but humane. A person proven to be a terrorist and who becomes a detainee, isn't treated humanly. They can and will be tortured, and rightfully so.

A LOT of criminals coming out of jail, commit other crimes. Some spend their entire lives in prison. Some become even more violent after coming out of prison. So because it doesn't have a very high rate of success, should we stop incarcerating people?

A country who has pity for the guilty isn't a great country. Let's see how nicely Ben Ladin gets treated, if he ever gets caught. I'm sure the honorable US forces would wear satin gloves, feed him caviar and make sure he's comfy after he's captured. We wouldn't want to hurt the terrorist mastermind's feelings, would we? That would be so inhuman, immoral and mean. Let's give him a room at the Ritz, and have the taxpayers pay for everything. Since the nation is so great and pities the guilty.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 12:20 PM
I don't care to get into an discussion with you if you are going for the whole strawman argument.

Lol. Classic Christian, storming away as soon as we point out flaws in their way of thinking.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 17th, 2010, 12:34 PM
I'm sure all the people and the families who died in terrorist attacks throughout the world agree with you. If it doesn't happen to YOU, it doesn't happen at all, right? And you have obviously never set foot in one of the prisons in Detroit, or some other states where jails are anything but humane. A person proven to be a terrorist and who becomes a detainee, isn't treated humanly. They can and will be tortured, and rightfully so.

A LOT of criminals coming out of jail, commit other crimes. Some spend their entire lives in prison. Some become even more violent after coming out of prison. So because it doesn't have a very high rate of success, should we stop incarcerating people?

A country who has pity for the guilty isn't a great country. Let's see how nicely Ben Ladin gets treated, if he ever gets caught. I'm sure the honorable US forces would wear satin gloves, feed him caviar and make sure he's comfy after he's captured. We wouldn't want to hurt the terrorist mastermind's feelings, would we? That would be so inhuman, immoral and mean. Let's give him a room at the Ritz, and have the taxpayers pay for everything. Since the nation is so great and pities the guilty.

Strange, I don't recall stating that terrorism doesn't happen at all. You'd do better if you stopped making things up that people haven't said. What I did make mention of was that, by the numbers, terrorism doesn't deserve this fear-mongering that so many seem to engage in. If the amount of deaths really concerned you, you'd do more to have backyard pools filled in, as they cause more deaths every single year than 9/11 caused on one day.

Prisons are indeed nasty places. And again, you're making illogical arguments. People that are imprisoned, in the US and other civilized places, have gone through an investigation and a trial in a court of law and, as reprehensible as some prisons are, there are mechanisms in place to address issues and for the inmates themselves to press for change. It's not perfect but it does exist. Kidnapping someone off the street, putting a bag over their head and smuggling them out of the country where they can be imprisoned and tortured without benefit of the law is a whole other thing. Should we stop incarcerating people? Of course not. But we should ensure, through our time honored method of a trial before your peers, that a person is in fact guilty of a crime first.

We'll have to agree to disagree about pity for the guilty. As for Bin Laden, I suppose it will have to wait until he gets captured in the first place, wouldn't you agree?

Just as an aside and something I've found of interest, given your feelings about crime, criminals and the application of the law. Currently, you're using a siggie supporting the Hell's Angel's, currently viewed as a criminal organization in Canada and the focus of a great deal of the RCMP's time. Given your belief about justice, should the RCMP be investigating, trying in a court of law and incarcerating members of this criminal organization, or should they be smuggling the criminals outside of the purview of Canada's justice system and torturing them?

rlr149
June 17th, 2010, 12:41 PM
rlr,

So, if you are being mugged, to use your analogy, if you could lie to get away from the mugger or get the mugging to stop, would you? Additionally, does the success of the mugging depend upon your honest responses to the mugger's questions?
it wasn't an analogy, its an example of pain being used to garner cooperation/compliance. and it working.

"give me your purse!"
"no"------- bluff called, mugger either runs or fights

"give me your purse!"
"yes"---------- but she doesn't hand it over, mugger either demands again, fights or runs

nothing was gained by lying to him, if he was going to fight he would either way you answer.
and as i JUST said, the specific circumstances change the actions i would take in the same situation, if there was an easier safer way to avoid it i would, but i would still fight if i deem it nessesary. fighting is generally considered a bad thing by most, i wouldn't be waiting for approval from all those people before i took the action though.
psychotics shouldn't use this system i use:cameron:


What kind of mugger asks questions?
a mugger doesn't always start with violence, the threat of it might be enough, its a bluff on the muggers part, he was called on that bluff. at that point he has no realistic option to 'ask' again.

its a bit like the joke about british police officers only really being able to shout "stop!! or i'll shout 'stop' again!" as a reason for criminals to stop running away....................... thats not me wanting police armed though;)

Kaiphantom
June 17th, 2010, 12:42 PM
The way America is ran today has nothing to do with the founding fathers. And the people on this forum are not the ones torturing anyone. You're going to two extremes, here. How can you compare torturing a terrorist, to basically locking up your whole nation? The enemy isn't the people of your country, it's the people trying to blow it up. You want to protect those trying to destroy your freedom? Be my guest. There's already cameras everywhere and the NSA can listen to any phone they like. The US isn't the Land of the Free it used to be.

Fear mongering. Your argument was destroyed earlier, since the average person's life is more in danger of car accidents and lightning bolts, then it is from terrorism. It's highly illogical to focus on the 0.5% chance of something killing you, rather than the thing with a 10% chance. That you fear-monger this way, shows you are illogical, and thus unable to be swayed by logical arguments.


If everything the founding fathers said still applied today and was considered in the way the government runs the country, they wouldn't claim that the US is a Christian nation, and wouldn't mix politics with religion as they do today. All the founding fathers were very much against Catholicism, so hey, that means we should ban Christianity. Right?

Fallacy; you make an illogical leap. The founding fathers didn't want to ban religion at all; hence, the whole "freedom of religion" thing they included. They didn't want an official state religion, or an organized religion having direct control of the people. We've had some brushes with things here and there, but it's turned out remarkably well, given the past history of other governments.


In the context of torturing a terrorist or detainee, the current law makes it legal if it's done and sanctioned by the CIA. Until the law changes, it's good enough for me. And I hope the current laws stay the way they are. It's needed to have some people that are willing to do what is necessary to protect people who would prefer remaining quiet and watch their country fall, all for the sake of morals. I hope your high moral standards serve you well. Meanwhile, there's people risking their lives and doing things that their conscience disagrees with, in order for other people to keep their freedom.

You know what laws are? Enforced morals. You may as well be saying "I hope your laws serve you well." And given the context of history and other governments, they aren't doing too badly, thanks! =) True, could always be better, and I could go for lengths about things that need to change.... but you know what?

I'm not in any danger of the government dragging me out of my house at night. I don't have troops forcing themselves into my home and consuming my food. I don't have local warlords ruling me or my neighbors with the fear of death or torture. I get up each morning by my alarm clock, fed with power regulated by the government. I eat breakfast with food I know is safe thanks to the FDA, a function of government. I take a shower and drink some water I know is safe, thanks to government oversight. I travel to work in a car that is built to safety standards enforced by the government, on roads maintained by the Department of Transportation. While I am away, I secure in knowing that my house won't burn down or get robbed, thanks to the police and fire departments.

And when you fire up the internet and come to this forum and spew the nonsensical rhetoric, you can thank DARPA for developing it; another branch of government.

All of this done without torture, and with the hard work of people with the morals you so fear and despise.


Having pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

You're right; so I should have no pity for you, then?

Rudy Pena
June 17th, 2010, 01:16 PM
I'm sure all the people and the families who died in terrorist attacks throughout the world agree with you. If it doesn't happen to YOU, it doesn't happen at all, right? And you have obviously never set foot in one of the prisons in Detroit, or some other states where jails are anything but humane. A person proven to be a terrorist and who becomes a detainee, isn't treated humanly. They can and will be tortured, and rightfully so.

A LOT of criminals coming out of jail, commit other crimes. Some spend their entire lives in prison. Some become even more violent after coming out of prison. So because it doesn't have a very high rate of success, should we stop incarcerating people?

A country who has pity for the guilty isn't a great country. Let's see how nicely Ben Ladin gets treated, if he ever gets caught. I'm sure the honorable US forces would wear satin gloves, feed him caviar and make sure he's comfy after he's captured. We wouldn't want to hurt the terrorist mastermind's feelings, would we? That would be so inhuman, immoral and mean. Let's give him a room at the Ritz, and have the taxpayers pay for everything. Since the nation is so great and pities the guilty.

Theres a saying or something, but people who go to jail/prison and once they get out, they have a degree.

Its because people who go to jail/prison learn more and better ways to do things and do it right and quick.


I know in the state of California, it cost $100K a year to house one inmate a year. And many of the people are repeat offenders.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 01:29 PM
it wasn't an analogy, its an example of pain being used to garner cooperation/compliance. and it working.

"give me your purse!"
"no"------- bluff called, mugger either runs or fights

"give me your purse!"
"yes"---------- but she doesn't hand it over, mugger either demands again, fights or runs

nothing was gained by lying to him, if he was going to fight he would either way you answer.
and as i JUST said, the specific circumstances change the actions i would take in the same situation, if there was an easier safer way to avoid it i would, but i would still fight if i deem it nessesary. fighting is generally considered a bad thing by most, i wouldn't be waiting for approval from all those people before i took the action though.
psychotics shouldn't use this system i use:cameron:


a mugger doesn't always start with violence, the threat of it might be enough, its a bluff on the muggers part, he was called on that bluff. at that point he has no realistic option to 'ask' again.

its a bit like the joke about british police officers only really being able to shout "stop!! or i'll shout 'stop' again!" as a reason for criminals to stop running away....................... thats not me wanting police armed though;)
:lol: Though I don't see anything wrong with them being armed.

rlr149
June 17th, 2010, 05:26 PM
I'm not in any danger of the government dragging me out of my house at night.
unless you're suspected of something.

I don't have troops forcing themselves into my home and consuming my food.
no, you're just forced to pay taxes and they don't have to come round for it.

I don't have local warlords ruling me or my neighbors with the fear of death or torture.
nice 'hood' you live in then, some people live in some real holes with drug 'wars'.
I get up each morning by my alarm clock, fed with power regulated by the government.brown outs?

I eat breakfast with food I know is safe thanks to the FDA, a function of government. I take a shower and drink some water I know is safe,
whats in the water!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s):P

I travel to work in a car that is built to safety standards enforced by the government, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xRFNBWST25E/SgZqOGRnQdI/AAAAAAAADfc/g8dpo74zEn4/s400/Burning+Truck.jpg
i feel safer already.

While I am away, I secure in knowing that my house won't burn down or get robbed, thanks to the police and fire departments.they just sit at your house all the time?!?!?

And when you fire up the internet and come to this forum and spew the nonsensical rhetoric, you can thank DARPA for developing it; another branch of government.an infrastructure designed to survive nuclear war, which at the time only two countries could engage in................ one of which was the US. no ulterior motive there then!


All of this done without torture, and with the hard work of people with the morals you so fear and despise.
gitmo? abu graib? the US does engage in torture! i doubt you're a party to all the gritty details of military/govornmental invention,information procurement and R&D.

at the most these are only 'circumstantially' true rather than a countrywide 'truth' is the point. the water one sounds legit though:D


:lol: Though I don't see anything wrong with them being armed.i'd prefer something less lethal but instantly incapacitating, something like the berretta/tazer(can't remember name) guns in the sg1 episode with all the new recruits undergoing training.
cops are only human too so mistakes are to be expected, almost guaranteed. british cops don't seem to want them anyway. they don't face many gun wielding criminals and think it would just increase that figure. as criminals, they've already 'stepped over' societies boundries.............. whats one or two more steps to them!


*something about torture to keep it topical* :)

Kaiphantom
June 17th, 2010, 05:55 PM
unless you're suspected of something.

Yes, if I commit a crime, I could be arrested. OMG! HOW HORRIBLE! We should leave everyone alone to commit crimes as they want!


no, you're just forced to pay taxes and they don't have to come round for it.

How the hell do you think stuff like this is going to get paid for? You have a choice: Live in a place like Somalia that's pure anarchy and no one pays taxes, or live in the civilized world where taxes ensure a better way of life. Seriously? You're arguing against taxes?


nice 'hood' you live in then, some people live in some real holes with drug 'wars'. brown outs?

Now you're just whining, just because you like to whine nonsensically. As above, would you rather live in a grass hut in Somalia? Or in the US with power guaranteed 95% of the time?


whats in the water!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s):P

And what was the point of that? The women is obviously an idiot, unaware of the prismatic qualities of water.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xRFNBWST25E/SgZqOGRnQdI/AAAAAAAADfc/g8dpo74zEn4/s400/Burning+Truck.jpg
i feel safer already.

OMG, accidents happen! THIS IS NEWS PEOPLE! Seriously, you really have no clue what it's like in less well-off countries, if you dredge things up like this to complain about. The products Americans consume are heavily regulated to ensure safety a great majority of the time. Yes, things do slip through... but then we punish companies that do crap like that. Nothing is ever perfect, but you'll continue to complain about the 1% that isn't.


they just sit at your house all the time?!?!?

Please tell me you're not this dense... Although at this point I really think you're trolling. A decent police force cuts down on crime by their very presence.


an infrastructure designed to survive nuclear war, which at the time only two countries could engage in................ one of which was the US. no ulterior motive there then!

Seriously, I no longer know if you're even trying to make a point, or just disagreeing, just to disagree. A lot of good things come out of the military complex, that was funded with tax dollars, by the US's civilized government. Who cares the reason? It's enabling you to whine and troll forums right now.

Look, at this point I'm just gonna assume you're trolling. Most of your posts are generally unreadable, and incomprehensible, and only seem to inflame people with illogical and ill-conceived opinions so bad, that they have to be designed to get reactions. It's just amusing that all the advances a civilized society has done without torture (aru ghairb and gitmo came after the internet, fyi), enable you to sit there are your ass in a comfy chair, in the safety of your own home, confident in the knowledge you'll never have to make any kind of hard decision like torture or not.

rlr149
June 17th, 2010, 06:46 PM
Yes, if I commit a crime, I could be arrested. OMG! HOW HORRIBLE! We should leave everyone alone to commit crimes as they want!
you can be arrested on suspicion of a crime regardless of guilt. you can be arrested for matching the description of the guilty party. if ONLY guilty people got arrested there'd not really be any need for courts............... yet you have them.

How the hell do you think stuff like this is going to get paid for? You have a choice: Live in a place like Somalia that's pure anarchy and no one pays taxes, or live in the civilized world where taxes ensure a better way of life. Seriously? You're arguing against taxes?

i'm not arguing against taxes, whether you give them money or they come and take it, you haven't got it, the end result is the same.you may get beaten if they come round, you may get beaten in prison if you don't pay. i think the mafia call it a 'protection racket', "pay us or something bad will happen to you!". govornments call it 'taxes'


Now you're just whining, just because you like to whine nonsensically. As above, would you rather live in a grass hut in Somalia? Or in the US with power guaranteed 95% of the time?why is it whining to point out some people don't live in the fancy place you live? a place where fires don't start, where no crime exists and cars work 100% of the time, where govornments do no wrong and are always looking out for the 'little guy'!!

And what was the point of that? The women is obviously an idiot, unaware of the prismatic qualities of water.
joke, not notice the tongue smiley?


OMG, accidents happen! THIS IS NEWS PEOPLE! Seriously, you really have no clue what it's like in less well-off countries, if you dredge things up like this to complain about. The products Americans consume are heavily regulated to ensure safety a great majority of the time. Yes, things do slip through... but then we punish companies that do crap like that. Nothing is ever perfect, but you'll continue to complain about the 1% that isn't.
i wasn't just going to ignore the 1% like you did, because it soiled your dreamlike view of your govornment/country.

Please tell me you're not this dense... Although at this point I really think you're trolling. A decent police force cuts down on crime by their very presence.
but:

knowing that my house won't burn down or get robbed
isn't suggesting "cutting down", it suggests you are absolutly certain you will NEVER get robbed or suffer from fire damage, hope its true but hope is all it is.
if having a fire department stops all fires from ever starting, then that picture shouldn't exist.

Seriously, I no longer know if you're even trying to make a point, or just disagreeing, just to disagree. A lot of good things come out of the military complex, that was funded with tax dollars, by the US's civilized government. Who cares the reason? It's enabling you to whine and troll forums right now.i'm well aware that technology leaps because of war, don't make out that darpa were doing it for humanitarian reasons though.
the whining and trolling is just a bonus ;)

It's just amusing that all the advances a civilized society has done without torture (aru ghairb and gitmo came after the internet, fyi), enable you to sit there are your ass in a comfy chair, in the safety of your own home, confident in the knowledge you'll never have to make any kind of hard decision like torture or not.
soooooooooooooo, torturing peoples fine because you developed the internet, how?

i'm entirely convinced by your well thought out rebuffs, do you have a newsletter i can subscribe too?

and too aretoad2, this is the kind of "america is the greatest" attitude that i think is detrimental to your countries image to the rest of the world.
its made out to be perfect
the flaws are pointed out
and in this instance its sidestepped by calling it trolling and whining.

Kaiphantom
June 17th, 2010, 07:35 PM
you can be arrested on suspicion of a crime regardless of guilt. you can be arrested for matching the description of the guilty party. if ONLY guilty people got arrested there'd not really be any need for courts............... yet you have them.

That's the way justice works in any civilized country. It's not perfect, and never will be... but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Which, by the way, is anyone deciding to kill or torture at whim.


i'm not arguing against taxes, whether you give them money or they come and take it, you haven't got it, the end result is the same.you may get beaten if they come round, you may get beaten in prison if you don't pay. i think the mafia call it a 'protection racket', "pay us or something bad will happen to you!". govornments call it 'taxes'

That's like complaining that you're paying money to buy something. It's one thing to have money taken; it's another to voluntarily give it out to help pay for a civilized society. Yes, I can avoid paying taxes if I want to; I can move elsewhere to a country that doesn't have them. I happen to think they are worth the investment, and so keep paying. It's hardly the protection racket you're trying to make it out to be. In fact, for the last few years I've kept my income low enough that I haven't paid much, if anything, in taxes. I usually get it all back, so I'm thinking of switching my withholding to 0. You can't very well do that with a protection racket.




When did I ever say that? Drop the strawman, as it just makes you look worse. I said it's pretty good; not perfect.

[quote]isn't suggesting "cutting down", it suggests you are absolutly certain you will NEVER get robbed or suffer from fire damage, hope its true but hope is all it is.

It's highly unlikely. Fires do happen, but due to the fire department, they don't spread as far as they could. And in my several decades of life, I have yet to be robbed.

Perhaps those less fortunate should work to have a better police and fire department, or move to a place that does. ;)


if having a fire department stops all fires from ever starting, then that picture shouldn't exist.

Seriously? Don't be dense. You know what I meant, but you're trying to play dumb.


soooooooooooooo, torturing peoples fine because you developed the internet, how?

You're the one who wants to torture. We're the ones saying it's not right. I merely pointed out what we gained by *not* torturing. You have yet to point out *anything* that we've gained by torturing... except bad will and a helluva lot more people angry at us.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 07:42 PM
and too aretoad2, this is the kind of "america is the greatest" attitude that i think is detrimental to your countries image to the rest of the world.
its made out to be perfect
the flaws are pointed out
and in this instance its sidestepped by calling it trolling and whining.
So Americans are not allowed to defend their system from outside cynical criticism while the rest of the world can?

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 08:09 PM
Just as an aside and something I've found of interest, given your feelings about crime, criminals and the application of the law. Currently, you're using a siggie supporting the Hell's Angel's, currently viewed as a criminal organization in Canada and the focus of a great deal of the RCMP's time. Given your belief about justice, should the RCMP be investigating, trying in a court of law and incarcerating members of this criminal organization, or should they be smuggling the criminals outside of the purview of Canada's justice system and torturing them?

Irrelevant question. The people who are for torture certainly don't believe it should be used as a method on common criminals who possess no critical information. What the HECK are you talking about, do you think I believe even the common criminals should be tortured? Seriously? How do we go from terrorists to simple bikers who sometimes deal in drugs and other crimes, while the majority don't? I never claimed to be a big advocate of the law. I find the current governments flawed, corrupt and hopeless. But a lot of people within the governments are truly acting in people's best interests. Agencies like the CIA, and everything they do including the torture of suspected or proven terrorists, is a necessary evil devised to fight an enemy that respects no rules and no laws, nor the freedom of the people they attack.

Outside of this kind of threat, I am not for torture used as a form of punishment or retribution. The fact that I support an organization for my own personal reasons have nothing to do with the fact that I agree with the practice of torture in extreme situations. And guess what. Even if it becomes fully illegal, it'll still happen.

rlr149
June 17th, 2010, 08:30 PM
That's the way justice works in any civilized country. It's not perfect, and never will be... but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Which, by the way, is anyone deciding to kill or torture at whim.when did i say i'd do it on a 'whim'?


That's like complaining that you're paying money to buy something. It's one thing to have money taken; it's another to voluntarily give it out to help pay for a civilized society. Yes, I can avoid paying taxes if I want to; I can move elsewhere to a country that doesn't have them. I happen to think they are worth the investment, and so keep paying. It's hardly the protection racket you're trying to make it out to be. In fact, for the last few years I've kept my income low enough that I haven't paid much, if anything, in taxes. I usually get it all back, so I'm thinking of switching my withholding to 0. You can't very well do that with a protection racket.
no, true, you can't.................. can't really say you support your country by avoiding paying them though either.


When did I ever say that? Drop the strawman, as it just makes you look worse. I said it's pretty good; not perfect.
and yet you said 'only the guilty get arrested', "i'm in NO danger of being dragged out of your house", " secure in knowing" etc etc................... and non of those things are actually true. less likely maybe. not a certainty as you DID make out.

It's highly unlikely. Fires do happen, but due to the fire department, they don't spread as far as they could. And in my several decades of life, I have yet to be robbed.
lucky you.

Perhaps those less fortunate should work to have a better police and fire department, or move to a place that does. ;)
you could pay more tax and do your bit too ;)

Seriously? Don't be dense. You know what I meant, but you're trying to play dumb. adequate proof that what you say isn't what you mean.


You're the one who wants to torture.

no, i don't want to:

just like to say i'm NOT in favour of it! but i don't dismiss it out of hand like the more "open-minded" among us do:sheppardanime31:post 152 this thread, are you giantvillheads sockpuppet? been through this already:mckay:


We're the ones saying it's not right. I merely pointed out what we gained by *not* torturing. i never said it was 'right' either!! and tbh in a lesser of two evils way i believe it is 'right', but ONLY in a lesser of two evils way. clear enough?
i see no evidence either way that torture was or wasn't used, i can only look at the fact torture IS practised by the US today, i have no reason not to believe its been used in the past too. despite your insistance it hasn't!!


You have yet to point out *anything* that we've gained by torturing... except bad will and a helluva lot more people angry at us.i'm not privy to all military information................. and neither are you, i can't prove we've gained anything JUST LIKE you can't prove they haven't gained anything. never said i could............EVER.

rlr149
June 17th, 2010, 08:32 PM
So Americans are not allowed to defend their system from outside cynical criticism while the rest of the world can?

avoiding answering isn't defending their system, its avoiding answering.

aretood2
June 17th, 2010, 08:37 PM
i'm not privy to all military information................. and neither are you, i can't prove we've gained anything JUST LIKE you can't prove they haven't gained anything. never said i could............EVER.
Actually over the past few years CIA and military personal have stated that very little information has been gathered via "enhanced interrogation techniques." Saddam was actually found via conventional means, as well as most if not all of the bad guys caught in Afghanistan.


avoiding answering isn't defending their system, its avoiding answering.
Honestly, I don't even understand what you two are arguing about.

Demerzel
June 17th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Actually over the past few years CIA and military personal have stated that very little information has been gathered via "enhanced interrogation techniques." Saddam was actually found via conventional means, as well as most if not all of the bad guys caught in Afghanistan.


Honestly, I don't even understand what you two are arguing about.

It comes down to this. You are of the opinion that torture should never be used under any circumstances and that it is mostly unreliable. We are of the opinion that it should be used in extreme situations when it's for the greater good, and the lesser of two evils. Simple as that.

Rudy Pena
June 17th, 2010, 08:55 PM
Actually over the past few years CIA and military personal have stated that very little information has been gathered via "enhanced interrogation techniques." Saddam was actually found via conventional means, as well as most if not all of the bad guys caught in Afghanistan.


Honestly, I don't even understand what you two are arguing about.
Thats cus no one knew where Saddam was at, He was hiding in a 3 by 5 hole in the ground....like thats a prefect hiding spot where everyone would know in the higher ups in his military and government.

And the government of every country has been lying to there citizens for over 50 years now.

aretood2
June 18th, 2010, 05:59 AM
Thats cus no one knew where Saddam was at, He was hiding in a 3 by 5 hole in the ground....like thats a prefect hiding spot where everyone would know in the higher ups in his military and government.

And the government of every country has been lying to there citizens for over 50 years now.
And Prisoners in Abu Grahiab were being tortured for info on his location. So basically all that time and effort was a waste, not to mention it was just plain torture with little desire to gain information. Which is what happens when you don't have strict rules and heavy protocols in place.

Kaiphantom
June 18th, 2010, 08:29 AM
Irrelevant question. The people who are for torture certainly don't believe it should be used as a method on common criminals who possess no critical information. What the HECK are you talking about, do you think I believe even the common criminals should be tortured? Seriously? How do we go from terrorists to simple bikers who sometimes deal in drugs and other crimes, while the majority don't?

A criminal is a criminal. By their very definition, they operate outside the law for their own benefit, which fits terrorists and your Hell's Angels. Consider this: Hells Angel's deal in drugs. The FBI captures a few, and has some information that a whole load of drugs and weapons will be coming into the country soon, of which other members of the organization know. So, do they torture the few members they have in order to get the information? Those drugs and weapons coming in will mess up a lot of people. Yet, we're not supposed to torture them?


when did i say i'd do it on a 'whim'?

You didn't, but it's what you implied. I argued our society (and by "our" I mean western in general, which includes Europe, too) was good, and you wanted to say it wasn't so good. But you have two choices: society or anarchy. With the latter, people do get tortured and killed on a whim.


no, true, you can't.................. can't really say you support your country by avoiding paying them though either.

I never said I avoided paying them. Clearly, you don't know how the tax code works in the US, so I suggest you drop this; you are trying to debate something you have no knowledge in.


and yet you said 'only the guilty get arrested', "i'm in NO danger of being dragged out of your house", " secure in knowing" etc etc................... and non of those things are actually true. less likely maybe. not a certainty as you DID make out.

It's interesting, because my argument was never about arrests; that's something you assumed. I'm not really in danger of the ruling authority dragging me out for no good reason, like something Saddam would do. But as for arrests? Yes and no. While, statistically speaking, there is always a chance, the number of people in this country who actually do get arrested in the middle of the night compared to the number of people in this country, is extremely low. I have a better chance at being struck by lightning. I happen to think that's fairly good; you may consider it otherwise.


adequate proof that what you say isn't what you mean.

Adequate proof you have no idea what you're arguing about.

Isn't it nice to toss out baseless statements without having to back them up? Two can play this game. ;)


i never said it was 'right' either!! and tbh in a lesser of two evils way i believe it is 'right', but ONLY in a lesser of two evils way. clear enough?

We're making progress; you agree it's not right. Now let's explore that further; why isn't it right? Because the people arguing against saying torture is never a good idea, have very intelligent, rational, logical, *and* moral reasons why it's not.

#1. It ticks people off at us
#2. you can't claim the moral high ground if you resort to using what your enemies do
#3. It makes you just like your enemies, so you're just the same
#4. It's a highly unreliable way of getting information
#5. There are always alternatives with a higher chance of success
#6. It makes our own troops less safe; once it becomes known that we torture, our enemies will do the same to our troops, if they haven't been already. Hope you never join the army...


and neither are you, i can't prove we've gained anything JUST LIKE you can't prove they haven't gained anything. never said i could............EVER.

See, the difference is that we can point to other methods and explain logically why they would be better, like investigation, deduction, wiretapping, spying, etc. These are real things in use today that show real results, stuff that cops and military intelligence have used for centuries. In order for you to prove that torture is "right" you have to prove that it actually works, and so far, there's been a distinct lack of proof.

But I'll help you out; there are times when torture has been effective. Want to know when? Dictatorships ruling their people by fear. If it becomes known that you torture people who are less than 100% cooperative with you, let your people hear and see the screams, they will be intimidated. They will know that if they ever step out of line, they will be up there. In that case, torture isn't used so much for information, as it is to generate fear in general. That's the only thing torture is good for.

Now tell me, honestly yes or no: do you want to live in a place like that?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 18th, 2010, 08:39 AM
Demerzel,


Irrelevant question. The people who are for torture certainly don't believe it should be used as a method on common criminals who possess no critical information. What the HECK are you talking about, do you think I believe even the common criminals should be tortured? Seriously? How do we go from terrorists to simple bikers who sometimes deal in drugs and other crimes, while the majority don't?

How does the interrogator know an individual possesses critical information that warrents the use of torture to get that information?

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 10:58 AM
Demerzel,



How does the interrogator know an individual possesses critical information that warrents the use of torture to get that information?

E-mail the National Clandestine Service branch of the CIA and ask them that. I'd love to be, but I'm not part of the CIA and like 99.9% of the Americans, I have no clue how they do what they do. Don't pretend that you do, or that you know what kind of result they get, unless you're somehow given access to Top Secret information.

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 11:01 AM
A criminal is a criminal. By their very definition, they operate outside the law for their own benefit, which fits terrorists and your Hell's Angels. Consider this: Hells Angel's deal in drugs. The FBI captures a few, and has some information that a whole load of drugs and weapons will be coming into the country soon, of which other members of the organization know. So, do they torture the few members they have in order to get the information? Those drugs and weapons coming in will mess up a lot of people. Yet, we're not supposed to torture them?

Ever heard of a member of the Hells Angels bombing a federal building, a church, a peaceful religious convention, or anything else close to that? Are the Hells Angels at war with America? Are they considered enemy combatants, enemies of the United States? Do they possess information that could save thousands of lives, or cost thousands of lives?

I didn't think so.

Kaiphantom
June 18th, 2010, 11:18 AM
Do they possess information that could save thousands of lives, or cost thousands of lives?

Ooooh, yes they do. Let's take a look, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels
"Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada classify the Angels as one of the "big four" motorcycle gangs, contending that members carry out widespread violence, drug dealing, trafficking in stolen goods, and extortion."

And a nice long list of confirmed incidents, along with whatever other intelligence the FBI or CIA has on them, which you assume to be incredibly reliable. So, to prevent "widespread violence and drug dealing (which harms thousands of people)" you should be okay with torturing their members. After all, it's the lesser of two evils. We're only hurting bad guys to save many more people, right? That's your whole argument; it's the lesser of two evils, and we're doing it to protect others.

And more fun. You sould really read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%27s_Angels:_The_Strange_and_Terrible_Saga_of_the_Outlaw_Motorcycle_Gangs

Where a guy actually spent a long period of time with them, documenting stuff like gang-rape. In order to prevent the next girl from being gang-raped, are you willing to torture someone? Or are you just gonna let it happen?

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 18th, 2010, 11:42 AM
Ever heard of a member of the Hells Angels bombing a federal building, a church, a peaceful religious convention, or anything else close to that? Are the Hells Angels at war with America? Are they considered enemy combatants, enemies of the United States? Do they possess information that could save thousands of lives, or cost thousands of lives?

I didn't think so.They're the biggest criminal organization in Canada. They didn't get that appelation by delivering toys to needy kids and everyone knows that. As a group, the only thing that's keeping them from being labelled a terrorist organization is that Canada is pretty conservative when it comes to making that call. But for the sake of what if's, which is what this whole thread is mostly composed of - let's say they do get that label and RCMP, CSIS, hell, let's go all out and say that the JTF2 is sent out after them. Do they get a trial? Or do they get rendered to another state where they will be tortured?

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Ooooh, yes they do. Let's take a look, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels
"Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada classify the Angels as one of the "big four" motorcycle gangs, contending that members carry out widespread violence, drug dealing, trafficking in stolen goods, and extortion."

And a nice long list of confirmed incidents, along with whatever other intelligence the FBI or CIA has on them, which you assume to be incredibly reliable. So, to prevent "widespread violence and drug dealing (which harms thousands of people)" you should be okay with torturing their members. After all, it's the lesser of two evils. We're only hurting bad guys to save many more people, right? That's your whole argument; it's the lesser of two evils, and we're doing it to protect others.

And more fun. You sould really read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%27s_Angels:_The_Strange_and_Terrible_Saga_of_the_Outlaw_Motorcycle_Gangs

Where a guy actually spent a long period of time with them, documenting stuff like gang-rape. In order to prevent the next girl from being gang-raped, are you willing to torture someone? Or are you just gonna let it happen?

I was going to call you the R word, so instead I'll stop replying to you. I'm from Quebec, where we have the very best, most elite organized crime fighting units in the entire world (Don't believe me? Look it up.) One of the reasons it took so long for the authorities to crack down on the Hells Angels is that they are impossible to infiltrate. Why? Because to become a full-patch member, you need to kill someone. They caught them on about any other kind of crime, sure.

Now, stop trying to put words in my mouth and make it sound like I think torture should be used as a method every day. I only ever said I agreed with it in case of a proven terrorist. How is that hard to understand? Hell, most supporters I met care more about the security of their country than you do. But they're not spineless cowards, like some others. Don't like em? I suggest walking to a biker bar in your city, look for them, and go tell them in their face. I actually met one of my supporter friends in Edmonton while in the Canadian army. And he certainly doesn't do anything illegal aside from going a bit fast on his bike sometimes. I don't support the crimes they commit. When not injured, I ride my bike a lot with him and it's a shared passion, which is about all we have in common.

I suggest that instead of seeing the world on your computer screen, you go outside a lot. Real life experience is a lot better than using Wikipedia instead of your brain. That's why military people know that unless you served, saw combat and what really goes on, you can't understand. You're a nobody in a house, doing nothing for his country.

You're brave, right? You're hot stuff? You think that under torture, if you did know something, that you wouldn't reveal it because torture is so silly and unreliable? So going up to some guys to tell them you disagree with them shouldn't be a big deal.

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 11:52 AM
They're the biggest criminal organization in Canada. They didn't get that appelation by delivering toys to needy kids and everyone knows that. As a group, the only thing that's keeping them from being labelled a terrorist organization is that Canada is pretty conservative when it comes to making that call. But for the sake of what if's, which is what this whole thread is mostly composed of - let's say they do get that label and RCMP, CSIS, hell, let's go all out and say that the JTF2 is sent out after them. Do they get a trial? Or do they get rendered to another state where they will be tortured?

You keep bringing that up, about deporting them and torturing them. Even my cat understands things faster than you. Replying to you is a waste of energy. Go hug a tree or something.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 18th, 2010, 11:58 AM
You keep bringing that up, about deporting them and torturing them. Even my cat understands things faster than you. Replying to you is a waste of energy. Go hug a tree or something.

And yet you continue to reply :)
Given the topic of this thread, and your continued support of torture, I'd say that asking if you would support the torture of members of a (hypothetically soon to be) named terrorist organization is a pretty valid question.

Kaiphantom
June 18th, 2010, 12:27 PM
I was going to call you the R word, so instead I'll stop replying to you.

When my opposition in a debate resorts to Ad hominen, it's pretty clear they know they have a weak position and can't think of anything else to really defend their point. Thank you for that.


I'm from Quebec, where we have the very best, most elite organized crime fighting units in the entire world (Don't believe me? Look it up.) One of the reasons it took so long for the authorities to crack down on the Hells Angels is that they are impossible to infiltrate. Why? Because to become a full-patch member, you need to kill someone. They caught them on about any other kind of crime, sure.

And people call Americans arrogant. So, you agree that they kill a lot of people, like terrorists do, and yet... you somehow don't want to torture them for information. I wonder why? I mean, you grab their recruiters and torture them for information about who is joining, and you basically know murders in advance. Why are you so against stopping a murder before it happens?


Now, stop trying to put words in my mouth and make it sound like I think torture should be used as a method every day. I only ever said I agreed with it in case of a proven terrorist.

What is a terrorist? Someone who spreads terror, ie, fear. I think you'll find a lot of people are equally afraid of gangs and thugs like the Hell's Angels. So, on one hand, you want to use torture on a person who spreads fear and intimidation. And on the other hand, you don't want to use torture on someone who spreads fear and intimidation. I love the smell of contradictions in the morning.

Yes, you keep trying to say it's only something that should be rarely used, but that reasoning doesn't hold. Once you admit that the ends justify the means, that you're willing to do what it takes to protect people, you have to follow through. If you can't, then you need to rethink your position. How is torturing someone to protect people, different from torturing someone to protect people?


Hell, most supporters I met care more about the security of their country than you do. But they're not spineless cowards, like some others. Don't like em? I suggest walking to a biker bar in your city, look for them, and go tell them in their face. I actually met one of my supporter friends in Edmonton while in the Canadian army. And he certainly doesn't do anything illegal aside from going a bit fast on his bike sometimes. I don't support the crimes they commit. When not injured, I ride my bike a lot with him and it's a shared passion, which is about all we have in common.

I think we're getting to the root of it here, and it's very interesting. Hell's Angels are immune to torture because you like them. No other reason. Which is interesting, because you admit that you have to kill someone to join, so you're essentially supporting an organization that engages in murder. Why not donate to Al Quada as well?


I suggest that instead of seeing the world on your computer screen, you go outside a lot. Real life experience is a lot better than using Wikipedia instead of your brain. That's why military people know that unless you served, saw combat and what really goes on, you can't understand. You're a nobody in a house, doing nothing for his country.

You're brave, right? You're hot stuff? You think that under torture, if you did know something, that you wouldn't reveal it because torture is so silly and unreliable? So going up to some guys to tell them you disagree with them shouldn't be a big deal.

Heh, and here it is, the rest of the ad hominem, the last gasp of the desperate. You know nothing about me, and yet you want to attack me personally by making up unfounded accusations, in order to somehow draw attention from the points I'm making, which are hitting too close to home and making you feel uncomfortable.

You know, it's funny; I tend to disagree with evilgrin a lot, and yet the two of us are in perfect agreement here; it's scary. I'm looking out my window wondering if the apocalypse is coming. If someone can put grin and I on the same side, they might want to seriously start to question their position.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 18th, 2010, 12:31 PM
Demerzel,


E-mail the National Clandestine Service branch of the CIA and ask them that. I'd love to be, but I'm not part of the CIA and like 99.9% of the Americans, I have no clue how they do what they do. Don't pretend that you do, or that you know what kind of result they get, unless you're somehow given access to Top Secret information.

Here's my problem. You are advocating torture of people who "know" things without having any idea how we would identify the persons who would be subject to torture. I believe you've said in the past (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if they end up torturing the wrong person that's just to bad. Is that correct?

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 18th, 2010, 12:39 PM
...
You know, it's funny; I tend to disagree with evilgrin a lot, and yet the two of us are in perfect agreement here; it's scary. I'm looking out my window wondering if the apocalypse is coming. If someone can put grin and I on the same side, they might want to seriously start to question their position.I promise to be completely disagreeable later on today; I'm just pencilling it in now. We can't go having an apocalypse on our hands, not when the weather is nice for a change!

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 01:00 PM
Demerzel,



Here's my problem. You are advocating torture of people who "know" things without having any idea how we would identify the persons who would be subject to torture. I believe you've said in the past (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if they end up torturing the wrong person that's just to bad. Is that correct?

The death penalty is fully legal in some states. And it's a proven fact that they executed many, many innocent people. That method is also flawed, yet it's right there still and not being fought in court. Why does it sound like everyone thinks killing, or murder, is any better than torture? If the guy being tortured was innocent, he's at least still alive. Make a mistake and send someone to the electric chair (I have a weak spot for that, like McKay said), and well, there's no turning back. You can't go apologize to the person for wrongly frying them. A lot of people have also been incarcerated wrongly, for long periods of time. There are no perfect system. Why? Because the people writing the rules and making the decisions are imperfect human beings. Torture just happens to be one of the most extreme methods, that in a perfect world wouldn't be needed. I think it's horrible that innocent people got tortured, but unfortunately, very few methods always work. Cut a pedophile's "tool", and he can still abuse children in other ways, same way a convicted criminal isn't necessarily rehabilitated after coming out of jail. So even methods that extreme still can and will sometimes fail.

The US have made mistakes before, bombing the wrong target (or their own men), etc etc. In war, there are collateral damage, always. Men die, it's the nature of war. Torture, to me, is like nuclear weapons. It's ugly, it's wrong, and it shouldn't exist. Yet some rare situations happen when it's needed. I'm sure Truman didn't have a grin on his face when he made the call. I'm sure that while he thought it was the right thing to do, he hated having to do it. Same way CIA operatives torturing someone they think is guilty likely despise what they have to do, yet they do it anyway. I'm sure many will be relieved if the law changes and torture becomes fully illegal.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 18th, 2010, 01:05 PM
Demerzel,

If you could demonstrate that torture worked with any consistency to garner actionable intellegence and that it didn't end up polluting the process and slowing down analysis with false information I would buy your argument. As there is no way to know, short of telepathy, whether an individual is telling the truth when put to torture I simply believe it is of no value as a tool.

Rudy Pena
June 18th, 2010, 01:12 PM
And Prisoners in Abu Grahiab were being tortured for info on his location. So basically all that time and effort was a waste, not to mention it was just plain torture with little desire to gain information. Which is what happens when you don't have strict rules and heavy protocols in place.

They werent tortured to get the info for where hes at.

They are a Army National Guard unit, they didnt know what to do, they didnt train up for anything like that. Plus they were doing it for some other reason.

Rudy Pena
June 18th, 2010, 01:21 PM
I suggest that instead of seeing the world on your computer screen, you go outside a lot. Real life experience is a lot better than using Wikipedia instead of your brain. That's why military people know that unless you served, saw combat and what really goes on, you can't understand. You're a nobody in a house, doing nothing for his country.

You're brave, right? You're hot stuff? You think that under torture, if you did know something, that you wouldn't reveal it because torture is so silly and unreliable? So going up to some guys to tell them you disagree with them shouldn't be a big deal.
I'll say Hooah!!! :)

aretood2
June 18th, 2010, 01:23 PM
They werent tortured to get the info for where hes at.

You are a Army National Guard unit, they didnt know what to do, they didnt train up for anything like that. Plus they were doing it for some other reason.
Exactly, they were just told period, torture was treated casually. Had there been strict protocols that generally forbid it, I am willing to bet that it would not have been nearly as bad.

But when you give a general "okay" things like that happen.

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Demerzel,

If you could demonstrate that torture worked with any consistency to garner actionable intellegence and that it didn't end up polluting the process and slowing down analysis with false information I would buy your argument. As there is no way to know, short of telepathy, whether an individual is telling the truth when put to torture I simply believe it is of no value as a tool.

And in the end, it's your right to believe as you do, just as I will continue being for the use of torture in certain situations. Like I said, short of being among the few people with access to NCS files, we'll never know what truly goes on, because the government simply doesn't want us to know. For the same reason the military says -nothing- about Delta Force stuff. If they went and showed everything they knew, online, how safe do you think the country would be? We'll never, ever know what really happens behind the scenes. What politicians say in public is one thing. What happens behind closed doors, off the record, is a completely different matter.

Demerzel
June 18th, 2010, 01:29 PM
I'll say Hooah!!! :)

Hehe. =) I believe almost everyone should serve, even if only once. Then you go on living, knowing you did something for your country and you put your own life on the line. Serving is also a reality check that a lot of people would need. I started seeing the world in a very different way, after I came back.

Rudy Pena
June 18th, 2010, 01:31 PM
Exactly, they were just told period, torture was treated casually. Had there been strict protocols that generally forbid it, I am willing to bet that it would not have been nearly as bad.

But when you give a general "okay" things like that happen.

They werent told to torture them, or else a whole bunch more people would have gotten in trouble and everything. There didnt have anything protocols becomes they were just told to watch them or something like that and thats all. Its just something that you wont know about, cus its very different than what you guys think and everything and so its kinda useless to explain to you guys when you guys have no idea of how things are and were.