And that sounds like yet another opinion.
OK, let us take the 1-10000 chance that we have the immediately confirmable intel lifeboat case. One where simply lying wont work.
We can try:
Chatting him up.
Good Cop Bad Cop.
Turning him.
Lying to him. Tricking him.
“Less Strenuous” techniques (small cells, crappy food, loud music, etc.
or Torture.
Only in the last case (maybe in the 4th) do we have the chance of losing forever the intel we so badly need. It’s been shown that in most cases the victim either gets stubborn and refuses to talk or forgets the info under duress.
I’m glad you agree with me.
No they haven’t there are anecdotes but all there are no studies or anything. The closest we get is what we have seen in SERE training and things like that conducted by militaries around the world.
No, we have given **you cite after cite, study after study. **
There is no doubt that torture CAN be abused and I would argue that once started it inevitably WILL be abused but that is a different issue than whether if properly used it can work.
The question of whether or not it is counterproductive is an entirely different argument than whether torture can elicit information from a prisoner.
I think that the Sere training example is pretty strong evidence that torture works. All anecdotes and opinions seem pretty meaningless on that particular point compared to the proof we see in Sere training.
No. Since they know they wont really be hurt, they know the “torturers” are not their enemies dedicated to their homelands destruction, and they *know *what info they give up is meaningless and wont result in their friends and family dying. It’s a game.
It’s about as meaningful as pointing to a stat in a Dungeon & Dragons game showing % chance of getting info thru torture and saying “it works!”.
This in a nutshell shows that I was correct, the facts you are cherry picking are used to give torture an effectiveness that is note there. In this case I only needed to show that the research exists and it has been peer reviewed, you were wrong.
As others pointed out yours are ineffective and even the fact checkers have to say to the ones pushing for torture to be wrong once again.
Wrong again,you are the one demanding an absolute, based on the evidence it is clear that torture does not work in the most basic meaning of the word. That there are exceptions to that rule does not take away the fact that in real life using torture does poison your gathering of information and creates many other problems. Only the governments that do want to live under their poison are the ones that praise it, like the government Donald Trump wants to give us.
It has to be noted that Damuri Ajashi ignores the fact that that report (not a study or published science article BTW) is based on an activity where the trainers are for that case omnipotent. Not what you can expect to find in real life.
I got the power slightly wrong, those “torturers” were omniscient. Still, not what one can expect to find in real life: as the senate torture report noted, the ones expecting that even democracies can find perfect or competent people to do the deed (and be capable of judging the information properly) are the ones getting their ideas from fantasy land.
Bullshit. The fact that they KNOW they won’t be killed shouldn’t provide MORE of an incentive to give up their secrets. Are you fucking kidding me?
Cherrypicking?!?! ROFLMAO. You cite a $36 paywall that refers to the journal of POLTICAL SCIENCE!!! You realize that political science is not actually science, right? The journal you article you cite is peer reviewed in the same way that a law review article is peer reviewed. The “peers” do cite checking and fact checking, that’s it. There is no underlying study or experiments. Your definition of science seems to be “opinions that agree with me”
The Sere training results are much better "evidence of the efficacy of torture than a bunch of cherrypicked anecdotes and opinions used to build a case.
WTF are you talking about? Are you saying I can’t find instances in history when torture worked?
Bullshit!
You are redefining “works” to mean “the benefits of torture do not justify its costs”
That is NOT what people are arguing when they state “torture doesn’t work” They are not trying to debate the cost/benefit balance of torture, they are trying to preclude that debate. If you wanted to say “torture isn’t worth it” then you should say “torture isn’t worth it”
If you want to have a moral debate or a cost benefit debate then I suspect you won’t have many people to argue against but the statement that “torture doesn’t work” is NOT intended to be nuanced.
Your side has gone from “torture simply doesn’t work” to “torture does not work in the most basic meaning of the word. That there are exceptions to that rule does not take away the fact that in real life using torture does poison your gathering of information and creates many other problems” means I have already won the debate and the rest of this is just your side bitching and moaning about losing the debate.
Have some integrity and admit that the statement “torture simply doesn’t work” is not intended to be some nuanced statement that should take into account the toxic effects of torture on the mission and the organizations that engages in it. Its not like I’m asking you to say “You’re right Damuri, I should never have doubted anything you said or will ever say because you are the king of the internet”
ETA: And the fact that you have to throw in that shit about Donald Trump shows that you are trying to win the argument with irrelevant tangents that have nothing to do with the debate.
Do you have a link to a study or published science article? Because noone has linked to any such study or science article. Mostly just opinions, anecdotes and non-scientific articles (made up of opinions and anecdotes).
The Sere training results could at least arguably be considered experiments that produce real data not anecdotes and opinions.
Cites are meaningless if they don’t actually cite to anything meaningful. A cite to an opinion adds nothing to your opinion. A cite to anecdotes add nothing to your argument because others are highlighting that anecdote.
What studies? How are you defining studies?
You realize that an article filled with opinions are not studies right? Someone poring over history to cherrypick anecdotes are not studies right?
Damuri, true or false:
Spending one’s entire savings on lotto tickets to ensure a happy retirement doesn’t work.
This is wrong anyhow, remember your premise is that the research does not exist, you were wrong. It is just that simple. Your point is really just based on propping up an argument from ignorance and you are calling that “a valid effort”.
The fun thing is that the research I linked to does point at the Sere training as not being representative of real life conditions because the use of it depends on willfully ignoring that the high number of false confessions obtained that way are. (But thanks for acknowledging that it is not research nor published science, it was just training)
As the research I’m referring is behind a paywall (and really all of your objection are risible, starting with your premise that just because you can not see it it is then useless), one should at least look at the draft the research made before the final paper.
And thank you here for reporting to me and others that you are not paying attention, the recent bump of this thread pointed to yet another factcheck that shot down yet another misguided proponent of Torture.
As pointed before you are only demonstrating that you are still tossing under the bus the one expert that you cited early. He was the beesnees when telling you how torture may work, but after he checked how it did turn out in real life (by checking the senate torture report) he came to tell us that indeed, “torture doesn’t work”. You are still going with the absolute that we should drop the common use of “x does not work” You may calle it bullshit, but in reality it is more accurate than saying that “torture works” because the later is misleading in the extreme.
It is like if you are demanding here that we take as a lesson that groups like the CDC are telling us bullshit because they report that “the ‘natural way’ the anti vaccine people is demanding does not work”, not going to happen. (and no one is calling that bullshit even when one does acknowledge that there are exceptions where the anti vaccine people have a point)
Sorry, but the reality is that a lot of why this has show up again is because the trash of Trump is percolating from many sources. That you want to avoid dealing with the current events that you are indirectly helping has to be said, even if you do not like it.
Torture led them to Himmler. It worked for the British.
Not what I do remember from the histories I read, this linked one matches what I remember:
After the end of the war he was not tortured, he was captured but the British did not know who he was, he was interrogated and when found he admitted it but then committed suicide.
They tortured people close to Himmler to find out where he was hiding iirc.
My assertion here is incorrect as far as I can determine.