understanding, of course, that there is no such thing as a “smart” torturer, only fools who believe–in contradiction to hundreds of years of evidence–that torture does anything more than produce answers the torturer wants to hear without regard to truth.
Clearly, we have no “smart torturers” in the U.S. military, given that in the midst of the Abu Ghraib investigations the Army admitted that over 70% of the people held there (including many of the tortured) were simply picked up in sweeps and were in the wrong place at the wrong time rather than actually being suspected (much less being guilty) of anything more than being Iraqi citizens. Given the number of people being released from Guantanamo, many of them reporting torture and none released in anything resembling a timely fashion, (not to mention the U.S. soldier who was tortured because the torturers could not distinguish between a Middle Eastern “terrorist” and their own countryman in a “practice” exercise), there is strong evidence that there are no smart torturers, there.
So, in the absence of anyone who actually fits the profile of a “smart” torturer, I figure that enitocinnlonahte is either using irony (in a very clumsy fashion) to oppose torture or that enitocinnlonahte really has no basis on which to make his rather nonsensical claims.
I’ve read that a significant number of the Abu Ghraib detainees turned themselves in voluntarily, expecting to be cleared by some process or other and released. In other words, they put their faith in the oustanding reputation of the American army – the same reputation for fairness and scrupulously correct treatment that so impressed our German and other (non-Japanese, anyway) enemies after WWII that it warmed relations through decades of close alliance.
That reputation was a priceless asset. Contrary to the assertion above that it “shows lack of resolve”, it helped make us respected around the world. Vietnam may have tarnished it, but Abu Ghraib destroyed it.
If this war is, as the Administration’s talking heads have so grandiloquently asserted, a conflict between two civilizations, we aren’t advancing our own values very well by torturing.
“Cruel and unusual punishment” is forbidden in one of our two principal founding documents – the Constitution.
Furthermore, it’s been an accepted tenet of Western thought for generations that torture does not work for informational purposes, because people will say anything under torture. This isn’t a new discovery, or some liberal assertion that needs to be cited and defended; it’s a bedrock philosophical principle of “our” way of thinking.
To abandon our bedrock principles in order to defend our bedrock principles is frighteningly Orwellian.
You understand, don’t you, that if it were to come to pass that people like you were actually running the United States, it would be the moral duty of the rest of the world to wage war against you and destroy your country?
You do realize you’re personally one of the bad guys?
Some knowledge of the victim is necessary. Asking them questions that you already know the answers to is enough to indicate whether or not they are capable of resisting.
Please, enough with the bullshit melodrama. You want to believe that torture is ineffective because you are morally opposed to it. Reality does not proceed according to your desire. Feel free to see me as some sort of “bad guy”, but know that you are completely unaware of my moral convictions.
The US supported and trained torturers for the Latin American dictatorships… so it seems to be an old tradition. So much for the un-american argument unfortunately.
As for effectiveness… I’ve seen more views on it not working… but even if it were effective it still undermines what the US should be standing for. Even if you “win” what have you become ? Who will stand by the only 1st world country that allows the Death Penalty and Torture ?
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
I wonder if your views on torture would change if you were on the receiving end of the torture instead of the giving end. If you were an Iraqi who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and got arrested by American forces on a mere suspicion.
And yet, all your posts have pretended that it is.
You pretend that torture is effective in producing true information without any evidence that this is so.
You pretend that there are people who have the magical ability to make it work, despite contrary evidence showing where it has failed.
Despite your claim, you really do believe that torture is magic.
My line of reasoning is based upon envisioning myself as the victim. Why do you think that being tortured might change my views? I have already express my thoughts from that hypothetical perspective.
You’ve mentioned contrary evidence, but I haven’t see any. Your attachment to this belief that torture is ineffective is to me reasoning from a moral standpoint. In my opinion nothing can be totally condemned. It’s not rational to think that torture is never an effective tool.
Read the subject of this thread, look up the word sell, and try not to take the internets too seriously. Principles are good, but why should they be allowed to prevent consideration of a subject from every point possible?
Puh-leeze. Attempting to place the burden of proving a negative upon the other side is pretty lame, even considering the rest of your arguments so far.
For me, it doesn’t matter if it works or not. It’s wrong. It’s evil. It’s a really stupid move in a world with instant international communication when we’re already reeling as far as foreign opinion is concerned because of the entire Iraq mess in the first place. It’s something that’s being done by MY government, in MY name, and I hate the fact that, as an American, it’s MY fault (collectively) that it’s happening. It tarnishes our name, it tarnishes our reputation, and it makes me ill.
Whether it works or not doesn’t enter into it for me. Torture is evil. We torture. That makes us evil. It must stop.
We’re perfectly aware of your moral convictions. You exposed them for all to see.
The like of you are well remembered by Russian mencheviks, German Jews, Cambodian intellectuals, Chilean leftists, Yugoslavian muslims, Rwandan Tutsis and so on… You’re the guy who proudly shout “present” when a volunteer is asked to shot in the head an “ennemy of the people”. You’re a potential danger for all of us. You’re the guy applauding dictators and congratulating butchers.
I happen to believe that torture is efficient to gather informations (as opposed to using it to have someone admitting to a crime, in which case it’s of course pointless), but still is morally unnaceptable, even when used on people who are actually guilty of some odious crime (thanks to the numerous “smart torturers” who know immediatly whether or not someone is guilty. These geniuses should work as police officers, judges or prosecutors, IMO).
And of course, it will be applied too to many innocent people, many people who are vaguely related to someone doing something bad, etc…
Let’s see… You’ve just been arrested because, say, you know someone who happens to be involved in a terrorist network (I’m assuming here you’re not one of these smart people who immediatly detect criminals and avoid being involved with them). You’ve been tortured now for, say, a couple weeks. And said nothing useful because you don’t know anything. In particular, you didn’t give the correct answers to the questions the torturer know the answer of (since it’s the method you advocated).
So, could you explain to me exactly what process your smart torturer will use to decide if you’re :
Actually innocent, so he’ll offer you a beer for the inconvenience and a voucher for medical and psychological follow-up (don’t forget to thank him for his efforts in the fight for freedom and democracy)
Actually guilty but resisting and granted the priviledge of a quick death
3)Actually guilty but resisting and deserving a slow painful death as you proposed.