Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

[Tony Stark]

An FBI agent interrogated Saddam Hussein and he got him to answer questions without using coercion or threats. He treated him well and built up enough rapport that Saddam became emotionally dependant on him and wanted to talk.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry 'Ziggurat', but torture is actually a very poor way of collecting data.

By the time the person is apprehended, the torture is used, the data collected, and then the data has been validated, then the data collected has very little, if any, real use.

For example, the Germans and Japanese used torture extensively during World War II and yet they still lost.

Um.... that doesn't tell you anything about the efficacy of torture. There's no reason to believe that interrogations of any sort were determinative in the final outcome of the war.

Also, torture was used widely centuries before to discover witches and agents of Satan, and even though quite a few people confessed to being such thing, however no actual supernatural beings were ever found.

Also not relevant. When you go searching for a specific pre-determined answer by any interrogation technique, you're likely to find it even when it's not true. That's not even peculiar to torture.

Why are you latching on to the worst arguments against it, when there are much better ones?

 

[Belz...]

You can scroll through this thread. I and others have offered a lot of evidence against that claim. It doesn't work as well as other forms of interrogation, and it promotes bad information as people say whatever they can to make it stop.

Of course it does. That doesn't change the fact that it often works.

What do you mean, it works?

It provides reliable results some of the time. (I don't know how often)

Torture is less reliable than more humane means.

That is my understanding as well. A carrot will give you better results than a stick.

Actually, I do not know of even one single case where torture has actually worked anywhere near to the extent that it does on TV shows and such.

However, if you do know of such a case, then please share it with us.

Ok. The co-conspirators in the gunpowder plot gave consistent and accurate accounts of the conspiracy. Hell, in most cases the mere threat of torture was enough.

But you are only guessing. You have no idea what you would do in the face of torture if you had something or someone you cared deeply about on the line.

Now you're massaging the circumstances in order to present a different story. Sure, if the information being asked of me was something I really didn't want to divulge, I might resist a bit, but not much. I was talking in the general sense.

But you didn't compare it to alternatives, like maybe immunity from prosecution if you give up your co-conspirators, or even a big bribe.

I didn't need to, since the comparison wasn't the point of the discussion. Why does it now become the point?

 

[Belz...]

Why are you latching on to the worst arguments against it, when there are much better ones?

I believe I addressed that earlier: because we strongly dislike torture and are thus more likely to believe arguments against it.

You know, just like conservatives were willing to believe any story against Hillary or Obama.

 

[Bob001]

....
I didn't need to, since the comparison wasn't the point of the discussion. Why does it now become the point?

Because the only possible justification for torture is that it is more effective than other interrogation methods. If that isn't true, then the moral, legal and practical arguments against torture are irrefutable.

 

[Tony Stark]

Perhaps torture really can more effective than regular interrogation techniques and the reason that the CIA's torture program wasn't is because they were incompetent at it? Maybe Trump should order the CIA to start torturing again, but this time only use the best torturers.

 

[Lithrael]

Now you're massaging the circumstances in order to present a different story. Sure, if the information being asked of me was something I really didn't want to divulge, I might resist a bit, but not much. I was talking in the general sense.

Massaging the circumstances? In the.. the general sense?? Yeah if my waiter brought out the thumbscrews he wouldn't have to turn the knob too many times before I admitted I wanted spaghetti Bolognese...

Your scenario was half threat rather than torture in the first place; threatening harm to loved ones may be psychologically painful as well but it is first and foremost a threat, it's even written on the tin.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I offered myself as an example just minutes ago.

That appeared to be you offering a supposition about what you would do in certain situations. I'm not asking about a supposition. You said that it works at least some of the time. I want an actual example about it working at least some of the time.

Unless you were describing an event that actually occurred to you. In that case, please say so, I will drop the issue, and you have my condolences.

 

[Belz...]

Because the only possible justification for torture is that it is more effective than other interrogation methods.

Really? Why?

I can justify plenty of things that aren't the best solution to a problem.

If that isn't true, then the moral, legal and practical arguments against torture are irrefutable.

Wait a second. How is a moral argument irrefutable?

 

[Belz...]

Massaging the circumstances? In the.. the general sense?? Yeah if my waiter brought out the thumbscrews he wouldn't have to turn the knob too many times before I admitted I wanted spaghetti Bolognese...

Your scenario was half threat rather than torture in the first place; threatening harm to loved ones may be psychologically painful as well but it is first and foremost a threat, it's even written on the tin.

And? It changes nothing of what I'm saying. Torture has been used on hardened combattants and spies but also on innocent civilians and crooked politicians throughout history. Pointing out that it probably won't work against hardened spies doesn't mean it won't work against the other groups.

That appeared to be you offering a supposition about what you would do in certain situations. I'm not asking about a supposition. You said that it works at least some of the time. I want an actual example about it working at least some of the time.

Perhaps you missed it but I gave an example. Because apparently no one can look this stuff up by themselves.

 

[DragonLady]

How is a moral argument irrefutable?

How is a moral argument not irrefutable?

"This is wrong." should be: "Full stop!"

No?

 

[Belz...]

How is a moral argument not irrefutable?

"This is wrong." should be: "Full stop!"

No?

I'm sorry, I can't parse your post.

Moral arguments aren't arguments from fact, but from emotion. How can they be irrefutable, or refutable, in fact?

 

[Tony Stark]

Here is a situation where torture would probably work. The CIA has your computer but it is encrypted and so they can't access the files. They use torture in order to get you to give the password. You're very likely to give them the password because if you lie, they will know right away and keep torturing you.

Of course, I doubt CIA torture program dealt with detainees who they felt they needed to torture while somehow being in a position to immediately know if they were lying.

 

[Belz...]

Just in case anyone here is confused by factual statements and are conflating it with moral ones, let me make things clear to you all:

Torture is, in my opinion, morally wrong.

 

[Tony Stark]

Just in case anyone here is confused by factual statements and are conflating it with moral ones, let me make things clear to you all:

Torture is, in my opinion, morally wrong.

It is a fact that torture isn't an effective form of interrogation. The CIA tried it not too long ago. The program was a failure.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm sorry, I can't parse your post.

Moral arguments aren't arguments from fact, but from emotion. How can they be irrefutable, or refutable, in fact?

Because some things are untestable without causing irrefutable harm.

So we need to have a bright line where we say "A little bit does no good, and we can't see if more does better without dire consequences, so we need to simply stop here despite being short of provable facts."

 

[I Am The Scum]

Perhaps you missed it but I gave an example. Because apparently no one can look this stuff up by themselves.

I have carefully reviewed every post you made in this thread and I do not see any real-world examples.

To be absolutely clear, are you saying that the following describes an event that has actually happened to you:

The mere threat of hurting me or my loved ones would be enough for me to tell you anything you want, and accurately at that.

 

[Belz...]

Because some things are untestable without causing irrefutable harm.

So we need to have a bright line where we say "A little bit does no good, and we can't see if more does better without dire consequences, so we need to simply stop here despite being short of provable facts."

Yes, we can all agree to that, I think.

I have carefully reviewed every post you made in this thread and I do not see any real-world examples.

Not carefully enough, it seems.

 

[Belz...]

It is a fact that torture isn't an effective form of interrogation.

What do you mean by "effective", then?

 

[ddt]

Jack Bauer used torture a bunch of times with success. For example, terrorists were trying to nuke Los Angeles, and he used torture to find the location of the bomb. If he didn't torture that terrorist like a million people would have died. Is that what you would have prefered, liberals?

Are you Alan Dershowitz?