Torture?

[OhBuhnanerz]

discuss

[Untelligent]

Torture is a terrible interrigation technique. Not because the terrorists don't deserve to die painfully, but because innocent people will confess to crimes they didn't do to stop being tortured.

[OhBuhnanerz]

Understanding that yes...

but to use it to gather information we know they know...

Not to get them to confess crimes, but to gather Intel...

Is that worth it?

Thats all Im trying to figure what ppl think.

[Reoga]

we cant use it to get intel but we can do it for .......Scienctifc couriousity you know just to see what happens

[cctmsp13]

It's near useless as a means of information gathering.  Torture is very good at getting what you want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Basically, unless there's a way to quickly double-check the info, it's no good.

You ask Mr. Terrorist where the next terrorist strike is planned (let's say Boston).  Is he going to tell you that, heck no.  He'll scream out Atlanta, Detroit, Kansas City, Sacramento.  The only way you could know if he was telling the truth was if you already knew, and if you already knew there'd be no point torturing him.  Thus, he just has to give you an answer you like, not necessarily the right one.

[Joker]

For my public speaking class, I did a speech against torture.

Basically, I found what cctmsp13 said to be true - it doesn't work as an information gathering technique. Two of the more interesting anecdotes I found were one case of a U.S. officer's unit capturing an Iraqi. The U.S. officer interrogates the Iraqi because he suspects his unit's gonna be ambushed and wants to know about any guerrillas in the neighborhood. He beats the guy, and threatens the guy. He doesn't budge. The U.S. officer finally puts his gun to the guy's head real dramatic-like, and the Iraqi is convinced he's gonna be executed and is scared to death. The American pulls the trigger...nothing. But the Iraqi starts giving out info. American troops move to arrest the people the officer implicates, and American lives are saved. Right? Wrong. All the names the Iraqi gave were made up just to save his skin, and all the prisoners were released when none were found to have been guilty of anything.

The other was during the Vietnam War, when the South Vietnamese captured an NVA guy. They interrogated him using torture and got nothing. Just defiance. Eventually he was turned over to the Americans, who used much less coercive, even friendly, treatment of the prisoner, and he gave them tons of information and even decided to fight alongside the Americans.

Torture just doesn't work. It's rare to get useful information. Either the prisoner turns defiant and welcomes death, or they'll just lie and lie, saying whatever it takes to make it stop. Maybe the poster should say "If wiring a couple hundred Iraqi prisoner's scrotums MIGHT save one American life..." instead. And in that case, anybody who'd support that is flat out a disgusting human being.

[Adolf Von Sippycup]

Torture?

[schneereich]

i agree with pretty much everyone who isnt ohbunnanerz here: torture is a terrible way of getting information out of people. i, for one, know that if i were being tortured i'd just make up all sorts of shit until they stopped. any non-sadistic cia officer will confirm this.

btw that "american life" term is pretty vague. what about the hundreds of american lives that are ended every year by our criminal justice system? not to mention the 130,000 that are ruined by life sentences. sure, these may be "bad" americans, but they are still american lives. if you don't like that example, what about this: products with potentially lethal design flaws are knowingly sold to the american public despite the fact that the companies are fully aware of the problem. as long as less money will be lost on lawsuits than will be lost by fixing the problem, the problem goes unresolved. should we be torturing (american) executives and engineers to make sure they dont know about product flaws that will kill or injure hundreds or thousands of people?

[Fake from State Jarm]

if torture always, absolutely saved lives, it might be worth it (depending on the guilt of the tortured?). but you can't know before you do it that it will save a life, so there is no moral grounds for it. and honestly, in terms of basic human rights, we have to treat everyone the same or the wars will never end. people paying taxes get some priviledges and services where they are paying, but justice should be provided for anyone regardless of their nationality, because it benefits all parties involved. fairness is very strategic.

[OhBuhnanerz]

All very good and valid points...

I want really saying I was a supporter of torture I just want6ed to hit the beehive with a stick...

[Fake from State Jarm]

that's not a stick, it's kenny's cock!

I can't see him being too happy about that. bee stings are like little insect rapings. which means kenny's cock is getting penetrated by venomous female penises.  

[wethepeople]

What Joker said, basically.

[Lord Doom]

i say that if we have to torture people, we make them have to watch oprah

[King Pengu]

I'm absolutely against torture. You only get what you want to hear, no matter if it's the truth or not. People who are tortured tell you every shit you wanna hear, just to make it stop. And most terrorists would give oyu wrong information.