John Oliver discusses torture

[Aepervius]

So interrogation which does not involve torture is unreliable too.



No, that's not correct.

Useful information=information which was not obtained by another way. Confirmation = information we already got by conventional way but confirmed now.

I maintain that from the report spoken about there was no information obtained by torture. Some confirmation yes, but nothing else.

On the other hand the USA is now looking like a barbaric country on the level of China , NK.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Innocent people will admit guilt over stuff like murder after hours of interrogation which do not involve torture. What makes you think there is *any* reliability to torture at all ? So far as I can tell if the presented information is correct, no useful information whatsoever was obtained by torture.

It's simple really.
If you wanted to keep a name secret but torture were applied, you'd say the name. Lots of other stuff as well, but you'd talk.
The notion that torture never works is ridiculous. An interrogator has to sift truth from BS anyways regardless of the methods used.

 

[Upchurch]

And I haven't and I'm not conservative.

You've not defended torture?

They water boarded the **** out of KSM and I have no problem with it.

If there was a line to punch KSM once in the mouth for anyone who felt like doing so, I'd join it and camp out for the wait.

The folks you shed a tear for, I never will, and I'll never lose a wink of sleep.

I do feel badly for those in the intelligence community whose jobs have been to drag the information out of the bad guys and have been thanked with the prospect of prosecution and loss of future opportunity in their careers serving their country.

You haven't hardly done anything else in these threads.

 

[Upchurch]

Let's put it this way: Does anyone think the US should have tortured prisoners? Should it be used in the future?

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm still not sure that it doesn't work.
Just not reliably.
People will tell you what they think will stop the torture.
I'm sure that sometimes includes the information the interviewers want to know.

I don't think you are telling me the truth.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I don't think you are telling me the truth.

Telling the truth isn't hard but you don't hear me not complaining about it.

 

[Belz...]

Let's put it this way: Does anyone think the US should have tortured prisoners? Should it be used in the future?

Not me. I am entirely against it.

But it has little to do with our discussion, doesn't it ?

 

[Upchurch]

Not me. I am entirely against it.

But it has little to do with our discussion, doesn't it ?

I think you have it backwards. The effectiveness of torture is but a subset of the discussion we're having, which is whether or not we should torture prisoners. If most everyone agrees that the US shouldn't torture and was wrong to have done so, the question of whether torture is more effective than more conventional interrogation methods is moot or, at best, academic.

The only reason we're discussing this, however, is because most people (or, at least, the people in a position to make such decisions) do not agree. As nothing, not even US law apparently, appears sufficient to prevent the US from torturing prisoners, I think it safe to say that it will happen again sometime in the future. Moral objections hold little sway over people who are angry or scared. (See the posts I quoted above.) Legal objections can and have been successfully ignored.

So the question we're actually discussing here is: Should the US torture prisoners? Why or why not?

 

[NoahFence]

It's simple really.
If you wanted to keep a name secret but torture were applied, you'd say the name. Lots of other stuff as well, but you'd talk.
The notion that torture never works is ridiculous. An interrogator has to sift truth from BS anyways regardless of the methods used.

Yea, but with torture at least we get the fun of putting the bad guys as close to death, as possible while taking the most time possible to do it. Fun for all ages!

 

[sunmaster14]

I think you have it backwards. The effectiveness of torture is but a subset of the discussion we're having, which is whether or not we should torture prisoners. If most everyone agrees that the US shouldn't torture and was wrong to have done so, the question of whether torture is more effective than more conventional interrogation methods is moot or, at best, academic.

The only reason we're discussing this, however, is because most people (or, at least, the people in a position to make such decisions) do not agree. As nothing, not even US law apparently, appears sufficient to prevent the US from torturing prisoners, I think it safe to say that it will happen again sometime in the future. Moral objections hold little sway over people who are angry or scared. (See the posts I quoted above.) Legal objections can and have been successfully ignored.

So the question we're actually discussing here is: Should the US torture prisoners? Why or why not?

Only in a ticking time bomb scenario. Which as you've stated many times will never exist in the real world. So I guess it's moot, right?

 

[NoahFence]

Come on, guys. This is schoolyard stuff.

Its the new ISF. Have you seen the Knox / Rule 8 threads in FMF?

 

[Upchurch]

Only in a ticking time bomb scenario. Which as you've stated many times will never exist in the real world. So I guess it's moot, right?

What I said was that it never has existed in the real world and, if it ever does in the future, torture would be the worst solution.

And, yes, I think it's moot, but there are those who still think it has value despite all the reasons to think otherwise. So, here we are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Only in a ticking time bomb scenario. Which as you've stated many times will never exist in the real world. So I guess it's moot, right?

Ticking time bombs exist in the real world. So far, there is no evidence that torture has been useful for stopping a ticking time bomb.

But yes, it is moot because torture should never be used, ever.

 

[Belz...]

I think you have it backwards. The effectiveness of torture is but a subset of the discussion we're having, which is whether or not we should torture prisoners. If most everyone agrees that the US shouldn't torture and was wrong to have done so, the question of whether torture is more effective than more conventional interrogation methods is moot or, at best, academic.

Well, it's academic to me, as my moral stance against torture is independant of my understanding its effectiveness.

So the question we're actually discussing here is: Should the US torture prisoners? Why or why not?

Answer: No. Because torture is wrong.

However it's harder to discuss moral values than it is to discuss facts. The fact that many here seem to be conflating the two doesn't help.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, it's academic to me, as my moral stance against torture is independant of my understanding its effectiveness.



Answer: No. Because torture is wrong.

However it's harder to discuss moral values than it is to discuss facts. The fact that many here seem to be conflating the two doesn't help.

Yes, the morality is the interesting question. Disputing obvious facts is an attempt to escape the difficult moral questions.

Consider the following scenario: 10 innocent people are trapped in a room with a bomb that will go off in a minute. The exit door has an electronic lock that opens with the press of a button that you control. Unfortunately, pressing that button also delivers an extremely painful electrical shock to a person who is bound and gagged and hooked up to electrical wires right in front of you. If you press the button, the helpless person in front of you is tortured (but the people in the room will escape). If you don't press the button, then the people trapped in the room will die. Do you press the button or not?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the morality is the interesting question.

I disagree. Everybody has their own morality and they are often incompatible. Discussing the facts and finding out what they are is far more interesting to me.

Consider the following scenario: 10 innocent people are trapped in a room with a bomb that will go off in a minute. The exit door has an electronic lock that opens with the press of a button that you control. Unfortunately, pressing that button also delivers an extremely painful electrical shock to a person who is bound and gagged and hooked up to electrical wires right in front of you. If you press the button, the helpless person in front of you is tortured (but the people in the room will escape). If you don't press the button, then the people trapped in the room will die. Do you press the button or not?

I have it on good authority that we can't discuss hypotheticals.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Consider the following scenario: 10 innocent people are trapped in a room with a bomb that will go off in a minute. The exit door has an electronic lock that opens with the press of a button that you control. Unfortunately, pressing that button also delivers an extremely painful electrical shock to a person who is bound and gagged and hooked up to electrical wires right in front of you. If you press the button, the helpless person in front of you is tortured (but the people in the room will escape). If you don't press the button, then the people trapped in the room will die. Do you press the button or not?

That is not even close to a scenario that will add value to the discussion. Being coerced into torturing someone is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about using torture to gain intelligence.

Stop watching the SAW movies.

 

[Upchurch]

Disputing obvious facts is an attempt to escape the difficult moral questions.

I stand by my sig.

Disputing "obvious facts" is critical thinking 101.

 

[Ziggurat]

I maintain that from the report spoken about there was no information obtained by torture. Some confirmation yes, but nothing else.

You mean the Senate report? The one where they never interviewed anyone from the CIA to find out what intelligence was obtained? Yeah, I'm not impressed.

On the other hand the USA is now looking like a barbaric country on the level of China , NK.

If you think any of this puts us on the level of China and North Korea, then you are blissfully ignorant of the true nature of both of those countries.

 

[Ziggurat]

I stand by my sig.

Disputing "obvious facts" is critical thinking 101.

It's an obvious fact that torture doesn't work because the subject will say anything to stop the torture.