DrDeth
April 8, 2016, 7:27pm
221
GIGObuster:
Good thing that that I’m not like that, I only point out that the cases that many propose as being good evidence in favor of the use of torture are not much clear as they want them to be, and once again, while we all do know that someone will win the lottery, we all have to realize that there is a reason why it is also called the “fools’ tax”; you have to realize that humanly speaking we all become convinced that playing the lottery when it goes to mega jackpots makes sense, but we should not maintain illusions that it is a good investment for all.
Same goes for torture, even if we do know that it may had worked in some occasions it is still a very bad investment (or use) to use for our intelligence resources.
Good analogy. Just because some people do win the Lotto, doesn’t mean it’s productive.
I think one point needs mentioning: Even if torture is ineffective, some brutal regimes will use it anyway, just because it’s brutal and repressive. Presenting them with statistical evidence of the low success rate of torture is hardly going to make them stop.
Velocity:
I think one point needs mentioning: Even if torture is ineffective, some brutal regimes will use it anyway, just because it’s brutal and repressive. Presenting them with statistical evidence of the low success rate of torture is hardly going to make them stop.
Torture as a means for learning intelligence has been known for ages to be useless. Napoleon knew it and you can bet if it worked he would not have squeamish about using it.
The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know. ~Napoléon Bonaparte
*On the subject of torture, in a letter to Louis Alexandre Berthier (11 November 1798), published in Correspondance Napoleon edited by Henri Plon (1861), Vol. V, No. 3606, p. 128*
SOURCE: Napoleon - Wikiquote
Torture is best used to extract false confession or to terrorize your opponents. It has little use otherwise.
GIGObuster:
His was the minority report, as David Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney and war crimes prosecutor puts it, even what Bill Harlow declared was not convincing. In every case that the Senate committee looked at, the actual actionable evidence used came from non abusive interrogation tactics.
Is torture effective for gathering intelligence? – Part 2 | PBS News
Indeed, in the “Torture and Democracy” book the author points at many examples of torturers that claimed that their way was effective when in reality the ones checking on them found that most failed to gain any good information.
The position that Harlow got into is precisely the same as many torturers that in the past were confronted later about how effective torture was, with evidence that their torture did not amount to much; the torturers are like the lottery winners that still continue to sell their books telling the gullible (even in democratic governments) that their system works and that it is reliable.
So we got a guy (Iglesias) that is against torture that is saying that the guy who claims that torture is effective is not convincing? Shocking just shocking
GIGObuster:
I also did check that history, suffice to say is that while the torturers made a lot of noise about the “progress” they made, the torture that was going on was well known among Algerians that had not been involved. The end result was the creation of more open opposition to French rule and the creation of even more radical groups that eventually forced the end of the rule of France over Algeria.
So what happened to the terrorism in Algeria BEFORE the French left?
Your losing lottery ticket sir!
Actually as it has been clear that it is not just him, but the vast majority who investigated the issue does agree with Iglesias.
Not sure of that but torture in Algeria did not work:
But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I’m repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods (“Too Nice for Our Own Good” was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week’s trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I’ve heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians “really know how to get these things done.” I’ve heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I’ve heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria – and they lost that war anyway. “Liberals,” argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, “have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective.” But it’s also true that “realists,” whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was “not nice,” he says. “But we did not physically abuse them.” Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet – as he remembers saying to the “desperate and honorable officers” who wanted him to move faster – “if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy’s genitals, he’s going to tell you just about anything,” which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn’t know “any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.”
SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
Whack-a-Mole:
FWIW:
CIA Director John Brennan shut down one of Donald Trump’s biggest campaign talking points on Sunday, saying his agency would not engage in waterboarding, even if a future president were to order it.
“I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard banded about because this institution needs to endure,” Brennan said in an interview with NBC News.
SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0 …#ixzz45T7bKYRz
Not worth much, CIA directors are appointed and can be replaced.
And their subordinates? How many of them should Trump dismiss until gets the ideologically pure intelligence cadre he desires?
I’m not for torture. My point being, that the declaration by the current CIA director, that they CIA won’t torture even if there is a new president, because he doesn’t believe it’s right, doesn’t hold a lot of water. Any new president, Trump, Cruz or fill in the blank, that believe waterboarding should be brought back, isn’t going to let the current CIA director’s conscience stand in their way.
DrDeth:
Well, it is not “productive”. The fact that once in a great while it has worked does not offset the moral issues and the waste of time the torturers have to spend looking into all the bogus leads if produces.
Let us say you had a tool, a hammer. To get a machine working, you hit it with said hammer. Hey, it worked once, right? But it’d be better to use the right tool and fix the machine, especially as after you used the hammer another time you broke the machine and it doesnt work at all now, it can’t even be repaired. In other words, in the end, using the wrong tool was counter-productive.
Torture is always counter-productive . Yes, like a blind squirrel or a stopped clock, it does work once in a great while. But you waste huge amounts of manpower (and all your ethical or moral values) for little results. Remember- *even the Gestapo *didnt get productive results from torture.
This is a very different argument from “torture doesn’t work”
But even this is wrong. You are imagining that torture only works by accident that somehow we accidentally torture some useful information out of a prisoner from time to time but the incidence is random.
To take your analogy a step further, torture may be a hammer but sometimes a hammer is exactly the right tool for the job.
Now you add another argument by saying that “TORTURE IS ALWAYS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE” Are you sure about that?
GIGObuster:
His was the minority report, as David Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney and war crimes prosecutor puts it, even what Bill Harlow declared was not convincing. In every case that the Senate committee looked at, the actual actionable evidence used came from non abusive interrogation tactics.
Is torture effective for gathering intelligence? – Part 2 | PBS News
Indeed, in the “Torture and Democracy” book the author points at many examples of torturers that claimed that their way was effective when in reality the ones checking on them found that most failed to gain any good information.
The position that Harlow got into is precisely the same as many torturers that in the past were confronted later about how effective torture was, with evidence that their torture did not amount to much; the torturers are like the lottery winners that still continue to sell their books telling the gullible (even in democratic governments) that their system works and that it is reliable.
I was countering the argument that there aren’t any cites that say that torture works.
DrDeth
April 11, 2016, 9:11pm
234
You know an OP goes beyond just the title. The Title is a headline. You cant put the entire argument in the headline.
If you would bother reading the rest of the OP- as pointed out to you countless times-*When it comes to the real goal of getting useful intelligence, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the details interrogators will get from a detainee can typically be acquired without torture. When torture is used, the “information” extracted is likely to be fiction created by a prisoner who will say anything to get the punishment to stop.
All ethical issues aside, the experts say, it doesn’t work because it is extremely inefficient and, in many ways, counterproductive.*
Torture… doesn’t work because it is extremely inefficient and, in many ways, counterproductive .
Hardly “another argument”,* since it was right there in the fucking OP. *:rolleyes:
GIGObuster:
Your losing lottery ticket sir!
Actually as it has been clear that it is not just him, but the vast majority who investigated the issue does agree with Iglesias.
The vast majority of people who were not predisposed against torture that have researched the issue are not nearly as sure as you are. The senate intelligence committee report has several footnotes that imply that information was gathered using torture, they just think that the information could have been gotten some other way.
I can cite some opponents of torture who think torture works. Can you cite a proponent of torture (who isn’t running for some political position) recant their position on torture?
So you prove this by citing to an opinion column that cites to the author of torture and democracy?
You might as well cite to Jenny McCarthy on how Vaccines don’t work.
Damuri_Ajashi:
The vast majority of people who were not predisposed against torture that have researched the issue are not nearly as sure as you are. The senate intelligence committee report has several footnotes that imply that information was gathered using torture, they just think that the information could have been gotten some other way.
I can cite some opponents of torture who think torture works. Can you cite a proponent of torture (who isn’t running for some political position) recant their position on torture?
Running for political office or in danger of prosecution.
What kind of psychopath isn’t predisposed against torture? “Should we repeatedly drown prisoners?” is not a question that should be met with a shrug and a “Dunno.” Even if it did make sense to support torture, that should not have been your starting position.
Damuri_Ajashi:
The vast majority of people who were not predisposed against torture that have researched the issue are not nearly as sure as you are. The senate intelligence committee report has several footnotes that imply that information was gathered using torture, they just think that the information could have been gotten some other way.
I can cite some opponents of torture who think torture works. Can you cite a proponent of torture (who isn’t running for some political position) recant their position on torture?
Already mentioned in post #217
Miller
April 12, 2016, 5:44am
240
Once we exclude the non-psychopathic portion of the population, the proposition gains significant support!
