• 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for heroup2112
#1 Posted by HeroUp2112 (17560 posts) - - Show Bio

How do you feel about the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (sleep deprivation, water boarding), or outright torture, when dealing with known terrorist suspect in order to get valuable...possibly innocent life saving information from them. I'm going to leave my opinion about out of this for a long while.

No Caption Provided

@modernww2fare, @gannon123, @citizensurfer

Avatar image for deactivated-5b466be4b5981
#2 Posted by deactivated-5b466be4b5981 (3660 posts) - - Show Bio

Just use tickle torture

Avatar image for seagod
#3 Posted by SeaGod (4322 posts) - - Show Bio

wasn't there a study done that says torture isn't a accurate form of interrogation?

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4 Posted by mimisalome (5245 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll go with what is realistic and what is practical and what will bring the best results in a given situation.

With at most consideration to the:

1st - the accomplishment of the mission and safety of my team,

2nd - safety of any unarmed and helpless civilians (specially children) that can be save realistically,

3rd - the impact on the morale of any relevant entities that has a direct or affective effect on the mission/operation,

4th - politics and propaganda potentials of the situations on a strategic level,

5th - the rule of law where they EXPLICITLY applies.

Point is im willing to do what is needed to be done and pay the consequence for doing it later.

Avatar image for amcu
#5 Edited by Amcu (14800 posts) - - Show Bio

I kinda feel like in such a situation where lives are on the line and they know for sure that they have a terrorist, they should do what they think is necessary to gather the information they need. Up to the point of torture. Nothing worse than that though.

Avatar image for kgb725
#6 Posted by kgb725 (17743 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for seagod
#7 Posted by SeaGod (4322 posts) - - Show Bio

@kgb725: yeah remember reading those articles. So I mean torture while a good form of punishment doesn't have much benefits for gathering intel.

Avatar image for giliad_
#8 Edited by GIliad_ (6577 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I keep hearing that science says it doesn't work an that the interrogator gets some complex in his head were he goes on a mad one thinking everyone is hiding something and causes serious damage when there's no need too. But also if someone somewhere f___s up a terrorist to save a few lives then go'ed - I doubt it has a 0 percent success rate after all.

Avatar image for greedosolo
#9 Posted by GreedoSolo (91 posts) - - Show Bio

Torture is a good thing tbh

Avatar image for insertnewname
#10 Posted by Insertnewname (1558 posts) - - Show Bio

Well you must be pretty sure you are interrogating the right guy

Avatar image for richard96
#11 Posted by Richard96 (5293 posts) - - Show Bio

Against terrorists? It is ok.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
#12 Posted by Thekillerklok (9550 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Trevor explains the subject pretty well on the drive to the airport.

Avatar image for kroczilla
#13 Posted by kroczilla (1647 posts) - - Show Bio

I am generally opposed to torture.

from all that I can gather, torture is actually an ineffective means of gathering intel even Gina haspel doesn't think it actually works and she seems like an expert on the subject.

https://apnews.com/89cd5aa034d1407787930c89e842195e/CIA-nominee-says-torture-doesn't-work-as-interrogation-tool

if anything, torture seems more like a potential propaganda tool for the enemy you're trying to defeat (the Abu Ghraib prison leaks come to mind).

basically, logically speaking, torture makes no sense.

there's also the subject of morality. yes, terrorist do some of the most f*cked up things imaginable (just saw the videos from the Indonesia bombings yesterday. I can't even...)

but I like to believe that we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard else we risk becoming just as bad as them regardless of how "righteous" our cause is.

I m pretty sure I had a quote for this. something about good intentions and a road to hell.

in summary, torture does far more harm than good as a whole.

Avatar image for hilarityensues
#14 Posted by hilarityensues (124 posts) - - Show Bio

You know you live in a backwards world when you get criticised for torturing your enemies...

Avatar image for old_blighty
#15 Posted by Old_Blighty (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112:

I am totally fine with it. We aren't north Korea, we aren't beating pregnant women until the baby dies (something that actually happens in north Korea). We aren't one of the many Islamic countries burning Christians in iron cages. Water boarding isn't even that bad.

Avatar image for willpayton
#17 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

How do you feel about the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (sleep deprivation, water boarding), or outright torture, when dealing with known terrorist suspect in order to get valuable...possibly innocent life saving information from them. I'm going to leave my opinion about out of this for a long while.

No Caption Provided

I personally dont have much of an issue with giving terrorists what they deserve for what they've done. Not much at all. However...

Your image seems to imply that showing concern over torture makes one a "prick". But, there are very legitimate concerns with torture that need to be addressed, and simplifying the argument down to a meme undercuts whatever point you're trying to make. Some questions:

1. How do you know that the person you're about to torture is indeed a terrorist? Yes, in some situations it's clear because there's very convincing evidence, but I'm asking in general. We have stories of people being held in Guantanamo for years and they were innocent, just caught up in raids and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, in general, how do you make sure this person is indeed a terrorist? What due process do you have in place?

2. The US signed the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw things like torture. How do you justify a nation violating its own laws and treaties, and which it expects other countries to abide by? Yes, many think that the Geneva Conventions dont apply to terrorists, so that's one argument. But others legitimately think that it either does apply, or it should apply. Or, that the Geneva Conventions have become an international norm... similar to how the Hague Conventions of 1907 was later declared to be customary international law by the military tribunal at Nuremberg following WWII.

3. Regardless of legalities, there are issues of credibility, reputation, and creating more terrorists by playing into their narrative. Even if we're justified in torturing terrorists (either for information or for retribution), surely we give up some of our moral highground in doing so. Is that a worthwhile trade to make? Are we ok with losing moral authority and possibly even creating more terrorists in the process?

Avatar image for heroup2112
#18 Edited by HeroUp2112 (17560 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Trust me, I'm going to weigh in on all this type of thing before too long. I'm mainly trying to get a feel for what others think for the moment.

Avatar image for willpayton
#19 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Trust me, I'm going to weigh in on all this type of thing before too long. I'm mainly trying to get a feel for what others think for the moment.

Another thing I forgot to bring up in my earlier post is whether we're using torture for retribution vs information gathering, and what are the justifications and limits for either. Like I said, I'm not against torturing terrorists for their actions. They deserve it. But, that's my emotional response for retribution. Question is, should this be a policy of a government? I mean, it's one thing for me to say that I want to torture a terrorist, but it's different if I'm making laws or official policy for a nation. I dont think laws or policy should be made based on personal emotional responses.

Second, if we're using it to get intelligence, then... does it actually work? Many experts say it doesnt, or that it's more effective to use other means. Sometimes the argument is made that you might have no other way to get intel and there's a "ticking time-bomb", or something like that. Basically, a typical scenario on shows like 24. This seems more justifiable, but then again will that type of scenario ever actually happen in real life? How would you even regulate such a thing, if you allowed torture in just those cases? Who would oversee it?

Avatar image for heroup2112
#20 Posted by HeroUp2112 (17560 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton: Trust me, I'm going to weigh in on all this type of thing before too long. I'm mainly trying to get a feel for what others think for the moment.

Another thing I forgot to bring up in my earlier post is whether we're using torture for retribution vs information gathering, and what are the justifications and limits for either. Like I said, I'm not against torturing terrorists for their actions. They deserve it. But, that's my emotional response for retribution. Question is, should this be a policy of a government? I mean, it's one thing for me to say that I want to torture a terrorist, but it's different if I'm making laws or official policy for a nation. I dont think laws or policy should be made based on personal emotional responses.

Second, if we're using it to get intelligence, then... does it actually work? Many experts say it doesnt, or that it's more effective to use other means. Sometimes the argument is made that you might have no other way to get intel and there's a "ticking time-bomb", or something like that. Basically, a typical scenario on shows like 24. This seems more justifiable, but then again will that type of scenario ever actually happen in real life? How would you even regulate such a thing, if you allowed torture in just those cases? Who would oversee it?

Excellent questions. How would you personally answer them?

Avatar image for willpayton
#21 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton: Trust me, I'm going to weigh in on all this type of thing before too long. I'm mainly trying to get a feel for what others think for the moment.

Another thing I forgot to bring up in my earlier post is whether we're using torture for retribution vs information gathering, and what are the justifications and limits for either. Like I said, I'm not against torturing terrorists for their actions. They deserve it. But, that's my emotional response for retribution. Question is, should this be a policy of a government? I mean, it's one thing for me to say that I want to torture a terrorist, but it's different if I'm making laws or official policy for a nation. I dont think laws or policy should be made based on personal emotional responses.

Second, if we're using it to get intelligence, then... does it actually work? Many experts say it doesnt, or that it's more effective to use other means. Sometimes the argument is made that you might have no other way to get intel and there's a "ticking time-bomb", or something like that. Basically, a typical scenario on shows like 24. This seems more justifiable, but then again will that type of scenario ever actually happen in real life? How would you even regulate such a thing, if you allowed torture in just those cases? Who would oversee it?

Excellent questions. How would you personally answer them?

It's a difficult subject. To the first one, I'd say that we should not have policy that uses things like torture for revenge/retribution purposes. My own emotional response to something like 9/11 is that let me have 10 minutes alone with each of those terrorists. I would not care about due process or any of that, as long as I'm sure they were guilty. But, that's no way for a nation to run its government or legal system. We should have a process of fair trials, or a fair military investigation in cases where the civilian legal system isnt appropriate. But, it's very disturbing when people like Trump say things like "we should torture prisoners, even if it doesnt work". That sends a really bad message to the world. Part of being a modern civilized country is that you dont mistreat prisoners and that you have rights like Habeas Corpus. In other words, the exact opposite of this:

You know you live in a backwards world when you get criticised for torturing your enemies...

To the second question, it's harder. Generally I'd say dont use torture to try to get information from prisoners, even if they are terrorists. I'm sure there are better more effective ways. If you do ever end up in a ticking time-bomb situation, then maybe you can have some law that covers extraordinary measures, but this should be well regulated and there should be multiple levels of accountability.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#22 Edited by mimisalome (5245 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton: Trust me, I'm going to weigh in on all this type of thing before too long. I'm mainly trying to get a feel for what others think for the moment.

Another thing I forgot to bring up in my earlier post is whether we're using torture for retribution vs information gathering, and what are the justifications and limits for either. Like I said, I'm not against torturing terrorists for their actions. They deserve it. But, that's my emotional response for retribution. Question is, should this be a policy of a government? I mean, it's one thing for me to say that I want to torture a terrorist, but it's different if I'm making laws or official policy for a nation. I dont think laws or policy should be made based on personal emotional responses.

Second, if we're using it to get intelligence, then... does it actually work? Many experts say it doesnt, or that it's more effective to use other means. Sometimes the argument is made that you might have no other way to get intel and there's a "ticking time-bomb", or something like that. Basically, a typical scenario on shows like 24. This seems more justifiable, but then again will that type of scenario ever actually happen in real life? How would you even regulate such a thing, if you allowed torture in just those cases? Who would oversee it?

I think the purpose of "torture", in interrogation, is to NOT gain accurate information per se, but as a means to "encourage" the respondent to become more "cooperative".

If you are "torturing" someone to the point that they became mentally invalid and can't respond to you "accurately" anymore then you obviously failed at interrogation (that's not a failure of the "torture" technique itself).

Since we had already "advance" into that level of humane society where verbal coercion, intimidation and humiliation could pretty much count as "torture" (psychological torture they say), the act of "torture" could be as acceptable as making someone gravely feared for his well-being using trickery (without actually inducing any physical harm), that is in contrast to the traditional unacceptable kind of causing irreversible damage via extreme mutilations.

Also any people with a little bit of common sense would realize that "torture" (or any other interrogation method) could obviously work best if it is use in together with other interrogation techniques (positive reinforcement, trickery, isolation, etc).

How would you even regulate such a thing, if you allowed torture in just those cases? Who would oversee it?

Probably the same way you "regulate" the act of "self defense", you'll just have qualify if the "priviledge" to torture an enemy for some grave "security reason" was abuse or not (assuming there is a relevant rules already in place. ) after the act is already committed.

Avatar image for hilarityensues
#23 Posted by hilarityensues (124 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm not claiming it actually works to get information, it clearly doesn't. It should be allowed to hurt our enemies, demoralise them, strike fear into them. If they know they'll get disembowelled and cut up, they won't dare attack.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm not claiming it actually works to get information, it clearly doesn't. It should be allowed to hurt our enemies, demoralise them, strike fear into them. If they know they'll get disembowelled and cut up, they won't dare attack.

In which case they will also do it to us. And in any case, it will not stop them from attacking us. This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

Avatar image for hilarityensues
#25 Posted by hilarityensues (124 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: If they do it to us, we make it 10x worse. We have to act like savages, it's the only thing that works. Peace just doesn't and will never exist I'm afraid.

Avatar image for willpayton
#26 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

If they do it to us, we make it 10x worse. We have to act like savages, it's the only thing that works. Peace just doesn't and will never exist I'm afraid.

No, we dont have to act like savages.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#27 Posted by mimisalome (5245 posts) - - Show Bio
@hilarityensues said:

@willpayton: I'm not claiming it actually works to get information, it clearly doesn't. It should be allowed to hurt our enemies, demoralise them, strike fear into them. If they know they'll get disembowelled and cut up, they won't dare attack.

In which case they will also do it to us. And in any case, it will not stop them from attacking us. This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think that's pretty naive appeal to emotion "argument".

What is the guarantee that if you don't torture your enemy, the enemy will not torture you in return?

Modern warfare is pretty violent already, with lots of pain and suffering and dismemberment involve.

It wouldn't be too hard to assume that people who had suffered that much would readily inflict further pain and damage to their enemies when opportunity present itself.

This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think land mines and chemical weapons were banned because they are "non-discriminating" weapons that could hurt innocent bystanders.

Unrecovered mines are specially notorious because they are still deadly even after the war.

Avatar image for willpayton
#28 Posted by willpayton (21775 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@hilarityensues said:

@willpayton: I'm not claiming it actually works to get information, it clearly doesn't. It should be allowed to hurt our enemies, demoralise them, strike fear into them. If they know they'll get disembowelled and cut up, they won't dare attack.

In which case they will also do it to us. And in any case, it will not stop them from attacking us. This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think that's pretty naive appeal to emotion "argument".

What is the guarantee that if you don't torture your enemy, the enemy will not torture you in return?

Modern warfare is pretty violent already, with lots of pain and suffering and dismemberment involve.

It wouldn't be too hard to assume that people who had suffered that much would readily inflict further pain and damage to their enemies when opportunity present itself.

This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think land mines and chemical weapons were banned because they are "non-discriminating" weapons that could hurt innocent bystanders.

Unrecovered mines are specially notorious because they are still deadly even after the war.

It's not an appeal to emotion, it's what history tells us. This is why we have treaties like the Geneva Conventions. Is there a guarantee? No, nor did I say there was. But if you start from the attitude that you're going to act like a savage, then you can be assured that others will respond in kind.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b5405244e89c
#29 Posted by deactivated-5b5405244e89c (8376 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for hilarityensues
#30 Edited by hilarityensues (124 posts) - - Show Bio

Who the f*ck is the Geneva convention to tell me and my country how to act? People can defend, conquer and rule. The strong should be revered, not punished.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#31 Edited by mimisalome (5245 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@mimisalome said:
@willpayton said:
@hilarityensues said:

@willpayton: I'm not claiming it actually works to get information, it clearly doesn't. It should be allowed to hurt our enemies, demoralise them, strike fear into them. If they know they'll get disembowelled and cut up, they won't dare attack.

In which case they will also do it to us. And in any case, it will not stop them from attacking us. This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think that's pretty naive appeal to emotion "argument".

What is the guarantee that if you don't torture your enemy, the enemy will not torture you in return?

Modern warfare is pretty violent already, with lots of pain and suffering and dismemberment involve.

It wouldn't be too hard to assume that people who had suffered that much would readily inflict further pain and damage to their enemies when opportunity present itself.

This is why things like torture, chemical weapons, land mines, and many other things have been outlawed in war.

I think land mines and chemical weapons were banned because they are "non-discriminating" weapons that could hurt innocent bystanders.

Unrecovered mines are specially notorious because they are still deadly even after the war.

It's not an appeal to emotion, it's what history tells us. This is why we have treaties like the Geneva Conventions. Is there a guarantee? No, nor did I say there was. But if you start from the attitude that you're going to act like a savage, then you can be assured that others will respond in kind.

But if you start from the attitude that you're going to act like a savage, then you can be assured that others will respond in kind.

Or, like in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb.

Absolute barbarism, indiscriminate act of brutal violence, and inflicting out-most terror lead to the capitulation and complete surrender of the enemy.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99
#32 Edited by deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99 (11593 posts) - - Show Bio

The edge.

I'll keep an eye on this . . .

Avatar image for hilarityensues
#33 Posted by hilarityensues (124 posts) - - Show Bio

Barbarism is human nature. Embrace it.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99
#34 Posted by deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99 (11593 posts) - - Show Bio

The edge.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#35 Posted by HeroUp2112 (17560 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll be posting (what will likely be an essay) tomorrow.

Avatar image for crimson_lord
#36 Edited by Crimson_Lord (2821 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah torture is always fun.

Avatar image for infantfinite128
#37 Edited by infantfinite128 (5270 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112: It's a great topic, and I'm looking forward to your write up.

I'm thankful that I haven't been in this circumstance, and this is a good reminder to pray for those who are.

I don't believe that the ends justify the means. One shouldn't use evil for good.

However, there are situational bases. For an example, it's not murder to kill someone in self-defense, or to make a mental reservation for information that isn't anyone's business such as hiding someone from Nazis during WWII, or giving a disciplinary smack on a child to prevent him or her from causing harm to his or herself or others out of love isn't the same as physical abuse.

God forbid, I'm put in a difficult situation where torture seems appealing, but I would hope that my conscientious is well-formed enough to make the right decision and just in Jesus in whatever the outcome may be.

Avatar image for rl4
#38 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

I feel tortured when I read Lunacyde trying to debate.

Avatar image for wildvine
#39 Posted by wildvine (14859 posts) - - Show Bio

Good to know who the sociopaths of the site are

Moderator
Avatar image for jagernutt
#40 Posted by jagernutt (15477 posts) - - Show Bio

@wildvine said:

Good to know who the sociopaths of the site are

That's how we roll ain't it😄

Avatar image for old_blighty
#41 Posted by Old_Blighty (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@wildvine:

That's a little unfair. No one is saying that torture should be done as a recreational activity, or to be cruel. Some of us just understand that what is nice and what is right are not mutually exclusive. If lives hang in the balance and there is a person purposefully blocking the way. It is totally understandable wanting to move that person.

Avatar image for farkam
#42 Posted by Farkam (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4 said:

I feel tortured when I read Lunacyde trying to debate.

@lunacyde Fight.

Avatar image for wildvine
#43 Posted by wildvine (14859 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
Avatar image for old_blighty
#44 Posted by Old_Blighty (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@wildvine:

I don't get your rationale, why would you put the well being of murderers over the lives of non murderers? Is being kind to ones enemies better than the lives of our allies and/or citizens?

Avatar image for rl4
#45 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@farkam: doubt it’ll work, tagged em twice already, no response.

Avatar image for wildvine
#46 Posted by wildvine (14859 posts) - - Show Bio

@old_blighty: You equate "not torturing" to being "kind"? That is messed up. Also you clearly have not read all the comments or you would understand my comment. Or are you going to defend the comment "torture is fun"? I'm not saying it can't be done. Its a heavy question that luckily I don't have to decide. I am saying if you casually shrug off torture or readily endorse it, regardless of the recipient, then there is something wrong with you.

Moderator
Avatar image for old_blighty
#47 Posted by Old_Blighty (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@wildvine:

You equate "not torturing" to being "kind"? That is messed up.

You are ignoring the context of my statement and putting forward an argument I did not make in order to make your position on the matter seem like the correct one. This is a classic straw man. I am in no way saying that people are kind because they don't go around torturing willy nilly. What I am saying is that the ends at times very much justify the means. To forgo all unpleasant options because they are unpleasant does not make you right.

Also you clearly have not read all the comments or you would understand my comment. Or are you going to defend the comment "torture is fun"?

It is sad that you must resort to using troll comments as examples to make your point. I was hoping for a more honest debate.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Its a heavy question that luckily I don't have to decide. I am saying if you casually shrug off torture or readily endorse it, regardless of the recipient, then there is something wrong with you.

Regardless of the recipient? Did you read the OP?

"How do you feel about the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (sleep deprivation, water boarding), or outright torture, when dealing with known terrorist suspect in order to get valuable...possibly innocent life saving information from them. I'm going to leave my opinion about out of this for a long while."

The recipient was made very clear, a "known terrorist suspect".

Avatar image for deactivated-5b5405244e89c
#48 Posted by deactivated-5b5405244e89c (8376 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for deactivated-5bdfefecea198
#49 Posted by deactivated-5bdfefecea198 (531 posts) - - Show Bio

There are a lot of evil things that you have to do in war.

Avatar image for wildvine
#50 Posted by wildvine (14859 posts) - - Show Bio

@old_blighty:

  1. The context is torture. You brought up kindness towards enemies. I don't need to address that other than to say I never claimed to be right. But stay defensive yo.
  2. Dismissing my comment while ignoring my context after accusing me of ignoring context. Well played?
  3. I did read the OP actually, and all the posts. Hence my original comment, hence my secondary comment questioning whether you had read all the comments, further hence my example of an obvious shitpost to contextually point out not all the commentators are informed/balanced individuals. I didn't and still do not feel like cherry picking every comment to make this point. If you haven't read the comments I'm wasting my time. if you have read them and still do not understand my comment I am equally wasting my time.
  4. Thank you. At risk of becoming repetitious I have read the entire thread and grasp the topic. I also know what terrorist are, and I stand by my comment which you side stepped. Allow me to quote myself for your benefit--

I'm not saying it can't be done.

I am saying if you casually shrug off torture or readily endorse it, regardless of the recipient, then there is something wrong with you.

So let me say again in absolutely no uncertain terms. I do not care what the individual has done. If you happily or even casually go strait to torture you are sick. Torture is last ditch, desperate, no-other-way option. I cannot make my position more clear here.

Moderator