Sell me on why the US should engage in torture.

[tomndebb]

Because only torture fights magic.

[The_Tooth]

@Oslo Ostragoth

Would you oppose torture if it would prevent the rape and decapitation of your 10-year-old daughter?

Because that’s what these nutjobs would do if given the opportunity…

Is this a whoosh?

First, there’s no guarantee the people being tortured are guilty of anything or willing to do anything of the sort.

Second, if they’re in custody, their ability to rape and decapitate my hypothetical children is seriously curtailed. Torture after the fact is not necessary.

Your attempt to scare me into endorsing torture has failed.

[The_Tooth]

@tomndebb

Because only torture fights magic.

Well, you don’t see very many witch-based plagues or droughts these days, do you? Maybe torture does fight magic after all.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Evil Captor

Rashak, you are from Brazil, IIRC, where they have quite a history with torture. I remember reading years ago that a Brizilian cardinal who called for an end to torture of ordinary criminals by the police was widely criticized as being, “soft on crime.” Have things changed in Brazil?

I don´t remember this episode with the Cardinal. Police brutality has been widely condemned even if people aren’t exactly sympathetic to criminals. (yep the silly notion that your guilty unless your proved otherwise…) I doubt most would think stopping torture would be soft on crime…

I think when you have law enforcement people without supervision you start getting this type of misbehaviour. Sadly Brazilian simple minded policemen seem to think torturing is a good interrogation method. During the Dictatorship like I said before there were American and other countries experts teaching some interrogation methods to government agencies. Torture is way too common here and its lack of effectiveness is notorious. Wrongful arrests are a dime a dozen.

[GreyMatters]

I am confused.

Many people against torture say that it does not work because people will pretty much say anything to stop the torture.

I can see how many innocent lives would be destroyed using torture, and that these innocent people would give bad intelligence to make it stop.

I can see how guilty people would also feed bad intelligence to make the torture stop, and to also confuse the enemy.

But, I can also see how a guilty party might tell the truth when being tortured.(Most of the con side arguments do use the premise they will say ANYTHING to stop the torture which also means the truth.)

It would then seem the subsequent investigative follow ups might disprove some of the incorrect information and might prove some of the true information. And, the true information might have come only from that one poor tortured person.

So, unless someone can cite some sort of proof that all torture sessions across all time produced incorrect data or so much incorrect data that investigation is useless, this argument seems to be faulty.

That is not to say that torturing any innocent people to maybe hit one guilty person that then might produce correct information is right. I just think that particular argument against torture is faulty.

[tomndebb]

So, unless someone can cite some sort of proof that all torture sessions across all time produced incorrect data or so much incorrect data that investigation is useless, this argument seems to be faulty.

Sorry, your argument is based on a strawman. No one has argued that no incident of torture has ever happened to produce correct information. The point is that torture produces both false positives and false negatives and is, ultimately, unreliable as a source of information. It relies on having the torturer know in advance what sort of information the tortured knows, and also being able to tell exactly how much of the information is real vs information that is provided to meet the tortured’s expectations of what the torturer is seeking.

If you torture 100 people and obtain 500 facts, but 400 of the facts are false and 75 of the people never had any valuable information to begin with, you now have to do the investigative work to find out which of the 500 facts are real and which are false–investigations that could have been conducted without creating 75 innocent martyrs to the opposing cause.
Read the New Yorker link, above. Before the current idiots decided that we should get into the torture game, the overwhelming majority of reports we were receiving from countries that used torture were classified as “garbage” by the intelligence community.
When torture produces so much bad information that it overwhelms the occasional fact, it is worthless as a method of extracting information, flooding the intelligence channels with so much chaff as to make actual intelligence gathering more difficult than ever.

[MaxTheVool]

@tomndebb

Sorry, your argument is based on a strawman. No one has argued that no incident of torture has ever happened to produce correct information. The point is that torture produces both false positives and false negatives and is, ultimately, unreliable as a source of information. It relies on having the torturer know in advance what sort of information the tortured knows, and also being able to tell exactly how much of the information is real vs information that is provided to meet the tortured’s expectations of what the torturer is seeking.

I’m curious… how would you act in the (admittedly extreme) hypothetical I link to in post #114?

[GIGObuster]

@GreyMatters

That is not to say that torturing any innocent people to maybe hit one guilty person that then might produce correct information is right. I just think that particular argument against torture is faulty.

Read post 130, a war was caused in part with false information obtained thanks to torture. Investigative follow ups were never considered by this administration.

[tomndebb]

@MaxTheVool

I’m curious… how would you act in the (admittedly extreme) hypothetical I link to in post #114?

I dunno. I suspect that I would have a strong temptation to do something, especially if I had an emotional attachment to the child. I would hope that I would have the resolution to resist that temptation, but I can’t guarantee that I would.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that our best source of morality is Dirty Harry movies. (Remember, the girl still died, but the perp got off because of Harry’s actions.) Even if we create a special scenario where we might individually choose to seek forgiveness rather than permission, those extreme (and extremely unlikely) cases do not provide the context under which we should set policy.

[Sevastopol]

@tomndebb

Sorry, your argument is based on a strawman. No one has argued that no incident of torture has ever happened to produce correct information. The point is that torture produces both false positives and false negatives and is, ultimately, unreliable as a source of information. It relies on having the torturer know in advance what sort of information the tortured knows, and also being able to tell exactly how much of the information is real vs information that is provided to meet the tortured’s expectations of what the torturer is seeking.

Only relevant if the object of torture by Americans is to gain information.

Which it isn’t. It serves a number of purposes:

• To project American values,

• To connect the Administration with the values of heartland USA and

• To declare, “It doesn’t matter if they hate us, so long as they fear us.” (borrowed from the 'disgust with politics thread.)

I can forsee a time soon, when in a final blow to fond liberal America that silly Iwo Jima monument is melted down, it’s bronze recast into a lifelike rendering of the agonies perpetrated at Abu Graib.

And ranks of schoolchildren will awe and gasp at the noose, the electrodes and reach out to polish the metal with their touch so that they might long recall their nations prouder moments.

[MaxTheVool]

@tomndebb

I dunno. I suspect that I would have a strong temptation to do something, especially if I had an emotional attachment to the child. I would hope that I would have the resolution to resist that temptation, but I can’t guarantee that I would.

So you definitely think the “right” thing to do would be to not engage in torture, even in a hilariously extreme situation?

On the other hand, I’m not sure that our best source of morality is Dirty Harry movies. (Remember, the girl still died, but the perp got off because of Harry’s actions.) Even if we create a special scenario where we might individually choose to seek forgiveness rather than permission, those extreme (and extremely unlikely) cases do not provide the context under which we should set policy.

That was a Dirty Harry movie? I did not know that. Anyhow, I definitely agree about the policy. Even if torture is VERY VERY rarely the “right” thing to do, it’s so rare that no official policy could really meaningfully cover it, and there are many reasons NOT to enact such a policy, not least of them being that we don’t want to be a country that officially endorses torture. Which, by some arguments, we currently are.

[enitocinnlonahte]

@Sevastopol

Only relevant if the object of torture by Americans is to gain information.

Which it isn’t. It serves a number of purposes:

• To project American values,

Human values.

• To connect the Administration with the values of heartland USA and

• To declare, “It doesn’t matter if they hate us, so long as they fear us.” (borrowed from the 'disgust with politics thread.)

They already hate us.

I can forsee a time soon, when in a final blow to fond liberal America that silly Iwo Jima monument is melted down, it’s bronze recast into a lifelike rendering of the agonies perpetrated at Abu Graib.

Liberal America is a lie. It only exists on paper.

And ranks of schoolchildren will awe and gasp at the noose, the electrodes and reach out to polish the metal with their touch so that they might long recall their nations prouder moments.

Which they will read of in textbooks.

[Sailboat]

@enitocinnlonahte

The problem of rape can be attenuated by giving soldiers a way to satisfy their sexual needs. The military could hire prostitutes if it wanted to reduce the incidence of rape. The difference between rape and torture is that the definition of torture is not nearly as concrete as the definition of rape.

I think it’s generally agreed among those who study violence and psychology that rape has little or nothing to do with “sexual needs”. I’m at work, and reluctant to hit a bunch of “rape & violence” sites on Google (heh), but the preview of this one seems to indicate it’s likely to be a valid citation: rape is not sex.

Regardless of cites, I think I’m on pretty firm ground here – the opinion that rape is not really a sexual urge is pretty widely held and pretty thoroughly examined in popular, political, and scientific literature.

Sailboat

[enitocinnlonahte]

@Sailboat

Regardless of cites, I think I’m on pretty firm ground here – the opinion that rape is not really a sexual urge is pretty widely held and pretty thoroughly examined in popular, political, and scientific literature.

Sailboat

If it was not a sexual urge than rape would not be at all related to sex.

Your belief that rape cannot satisfy sexual desire is completely wrong.

[tagos]

@enitocinnlonahte

If it was not a sexual urge than rape would not be at all related to sex.

Your belief that rape cannot satisfy sexual desire is completely wrong.

Cite?

[tagos]

Good summary from Wikipedia

Rape has been recognised as being primarily about power and control for decades now. I’m somewhat surprised anyone believes otherwise. To argue against this consensus requires some heavy duty backup.

Rapist profiles

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, author of Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, described four types of deliberate rapists, based on their motivations and behavior patterns. Forensic scientists, criminologists, and law enforcement agencies often use these profiles to analyze rapists, and prevent future rapes.

Since rapes are predominantly perpetrated by men, a male perpetrator is assumed in these profiles:

* The power-assertive rapist: This is argued to be the most common type of rapist, accounting for about 40 percent of all reported rapes. An alpha male, he tends to value machismo and physical aggression, and often rapes victims that he meets in places like bars, where he may pose as, or be an authority figure. Power-assertive rapists rarely target specific people for rape and, while not intending to kill their victims, often traumatize and humiliate them.

* The power-reassurance rapist: Responsible for about 27.5% of reported rapes, this type of rapist has been described by law enforcers as the "gentleman rapist". He is usually:
      o of average intelligence;
      o not physically aggressive;
      o insecure about his masculinity;
      o socially-deficient; and
      o unable to develop interpersonal or romantic relationships.

Usually, he will select and stalk a victim before committing the crime. The victim is usually someone whom he knows, eg. a neighbor or work acquaintance. Power-reassurance rapists often force the victim to emulate foreplay, and take “trophies” of the rape; they may even record the event in a personal journal. Power-reassurance rapists tend to be the least violent type of rapists, often fantasizing about consensual sexual relationships with women, rather than violent conquests.

* Anger-retaliatory rapist: Responsible for about 28% of rapes, this type of rapist is often a substance abuser, with impulsive behavior and anger-related pathologies. He does not target specific victims, and often feels animosity toward women in general. The anger-retaliatory rapist's attacks are usually spontaneous and brutal, and while he does not intend to kill the victim, he may beat her to death if she resists. This rapist usually has below-average intelligence, and is likely to leave more evidence than other types of rapists.

* The anger-excitation rapist: This type of rapist, considered the most dangerous and elusive, accounts for about 4.5 percent of rapes. He exhibits antisocial personality disorder, and being often perceived as charming and intelligent, makes him rather difficult to catch. The anger-excitation rapist may or may not choose his victims selectively. Often sadistic, he will often murder his victim to prevent her from identifying him, or for his own self-gratification. Ted Bundy was an example of this type of rapist.

Rape has been regarded as “a crime of violence and control” since the 1970s. According to psychological analysis literature, “control” is a key feature in most definitions of privacy:

* "Privacy is not the absence of other people from one's presence, but the control over the contact one has with them." (Pedersen, D. 1997).

* "Selective control of access to the self." (Margulis, 2003)

Control is important in providing:

* what we need for normal psychological functioning;
* stable interpersonal relationships; and
* personal development. (Pedersen, D. 1997)

Violation of privacy or “control”, come in many forms, sexual assault, and the resulting psychological traumas, being one of the most explicit forms. <snip>

"The more comfortable a person is with talking about invasion of privacy and in insisting that he or she has privacy that deserves respect, the clearer that person’s understanding of rape will be…" (Mclean, D. 1995)

[tomndebb]

Sailboat, tagos, anyone else interested: look back over the thread. enitocinnlonahte is not interested in a discussion. He’s only here to throw out one-liners, unsupported by facts, and then shift his position with each post just enough to keep you interacting with him. I’d suggest you simply not do all that work to provide him a setup for one more one-liner.

[enitocinnlonahte]

@tomndebb

Sailboat, tagos, anyone else interested: look back over the thread. enitocinnlonahte is not interested in a discussion. He’s only here to throw out one-liners, unsupported by facts, and then shift his position with each post just enough to keep you interacting with him. I’d suggest you simply not do all that work to provide him a setup for one more one-liner.

Why is verbosity a virtue? I’m not sure how adding more words to my posts could possibly impart more of my opinion. I am sorry if that distresses you, but I would appreciate it if you would allow other posters to come to their own conclusions.

[enitocinnlonahte]

@tagos

Good summary from Wikipedia

Rape has been recognised as being primarily about power and control for decades now. I’m somewhat surprised anyone believes otherwise. To argue against this consensus requires some heavy duty backup.

I am not arguing against it. The fact that that is true does not contradict my previous statements.

[tomndebb]

@enitocinnlonahte

Why is verbosity a virtue? I’m not sure how adding more words to my posts could possibly impart more of my opinion. I am sorry if that distresses you, but I would appreciate it if you would allow other posters to come to their own conclusions.

Verbosity is not the issue. You have done nothing but post cryptic assertions to other posters, without developing your ideas, demonstrating your reasoning, or providing citations for your (occasionally wild) claims. You are not engaging in debate, but appear to be simply posting unsupportable assertions, one after the other. Other posters are free to engage you, but I am free to point out that they are investing time and energy to actually support their views while you have refused to do the same.

At some point, one or another poster is going to get irritated at your odd behavior and begin hurling eptithets at you. Rather than see that happen, I am simply suggesting that they review your posting style to see whether it is in their best interests to invest energy to engage you. I have asked you to engage the discussion and you have ignored me. That is your right. I have not issued any orders to anyone on this thread, but in the interest of not having a disruption, I feel it only fair to try to head off any future disruption.