Torture works, get over it

Torture Islamic jihadists all day long if it saves even one innocent life.

 

If you torture someone, how do you know they are telling you the truth? Would the torturer be able to distinguish between lies and the truth? How do we know they are being tortured as a form of punishment or to extract information?

 

If you can't respond to what I've laid out so far with anything other than specious references to "science", then it's not my intelligence you should be questioning here. I will tell you this: there is no scientific study that exists that is capable of putting a referendum on a practice as wide, varied, historical, and circumstantial as torture. It does not exist.

But if there is something out there by which a group of scientists catalogued the results of various torture practices by various countries throughout a historically significant amount of time, then I'm all ears, buddy. Maybe, just maybe, you might have an argument worth talking about on your hands.

But I doubt it.

 

All perfectly good questions that I would hope anyone who plans on torturing someone would have very clear answers to before starting it.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=torture+results+study

 

What about the clause about cruel and unusual punishment? What the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment?
As for the Bible it says to love your enemies. As I said defending yourself is one thing but torturing someone who isn't a immediate threat to you or anyone else is wrong. And here's where the Geneva convention speaks on torture.

http://readersupportednews.org/news...ire-us-prosecute-anyone-involved-with-torture

[qupte]

Secondly, IF it was true that geneva convention or the constitution forbade torture as you say, we should change that, because it would be stupid laws. If we know a terrorist has information that can save lives, shouldn't we use whatever means necessary to get the information? We are speaking of a terrorist who is planning to murder people, and that can be avoided if we use torture. Is his "rights" more important than the lives of innocents? That is a very stupid notion.[/QUOTE]

But how often did that happen compared to fualty information?

 

Nice post, I really agree with you. Like usual the left and the right people want it to be a black and white, good and evil issue. Like usual, it's somewhere in the middle.

I think when done correctly torture does absolutely in fact work. Those saying it doesn't don't seem to understand there is a method to it. It's not like the movies where you beat a guy up until he talks. It's a long process and sleep deprivation is a huge part of it.

The question for torture IMHO isn't whether it works or not, but whether it's ethical or not.

Personally I think there are definitely reasons or situations where it should be done. Definitely not as a common practice, but j could see situations that call for it

 

I will repeat, since it's apparently needed: if there is something out there by which a group of scientists catalogued the results of various torture practices by various cultures throughout a historically significant amount of time, then I'm all ears.

For me being stupid, I shouldn't have to dumb this down. Don't give me neurological and psychological crap from people who've never been in a torture chamber, let alone conducted a scientific study on the practice that takes into account scope/tactics/results.

For example: How many times did the U.S.A. torture somebody from 1950-present day? What methods were used and what was the "success" rate of each method?" Did the results vary by each individual torturer? What was the assessment by the torturer in each case on his effectiveness? How long did it take before average "success" was reached and how long before average "failure" was determined?

And now duplicate that study in countries around the globe. And the fun part is I'm only thinking this up off the top of my head! I'm scratching the surface of what a truly scientific study would entail!


Or better yet, link me to that study that must clearly exist because that's what you've been promising me. Science right? But if you can't answer those questions then you don't have a scientific study. You have B.S. which is all I'm seeing from that link.

 

Even a Muslim life?

 

Your ignorance of this subject is astounding, leave this to the people who know this stuff. There is not enough evidence to study what you ask. Modern torture was studied, and this is all we need to be relevant since you are suggesting we torture people NOW IN MODERN DAY.

You haven't even tried to read any of those studies because they contradict what you WANT to be happening. We are all lucky you are not in charge haha. Wheeww!!!!!

 

Finally, we get the real you out there. Oh btw, I bolded the best thing you've said all day. Ironic, since it directly contradicts your previous pleas to science while simultaneously vindicating everything I said: There are no such scientific studies on this, so don't claim you own science on this subject when it simple does. not. exist.

At the end of the day all you've got is a psychological argument against Torture which oddly, you need to link me to since you haven't been able to produce a good one yourself. I have been making that same psychological argument, so if there are relevant parts you'd like to take actual effort to in quoting because I'm not going to search 23 million 800 thousand sources for the parts that I think you are referring to. I will be happy to address anything you think is worth my consideration.

Because, after all, if I didn't want to read things that contradicted me, I sure as hell wouldn't come here.

 

Haha, do you seriously think there are many thousand year studies? No study was done thousands of years ago, so you're asking for the impossible. However, as I outlined, there are plenty of MODERN STUDIES THAT DISPROVE YOU, POINT BY POINT. I googled it for you, you do the research. The results will prove you wrong, I'm not sure you are ready to admit you're wrong here.

 

I'm sorry, when did I ask for thousands of years worth of studies? Or when I said 1950, which I assumed would be reasonable, you thought...something completely different....If you can't even read my simple paragraphs right, what chance have you of reading correctly any of these "studies" you keep speciously referring to rather than specifically referring to? You're basically asking me to go out there and debate myself. Sorry, but when I do that, I win every time. Kinda like this thread

 

Thanks to water boarding we do not have torture them all day. A few hours in the "spa" tub should do the trick.

 

Bottom line here; I showed you hundreds and hundreds of results for studies proving torture doesn't work. You ignore them. That's fine, but don't say you support torture because it works, say you support torture because you are pro torture.

 

The drugs the CIA administers make torture unnecessary.

However, in the absence of such drugs, give me a car battery, jumper cables, and a bucket of saltwater and I will find out everything the dirtbag knows.

 

Torture that is focused entirely on extracting intelligence has always worked very well. If sadistic vengeance is the objective it is less effective. Here is probably the best uninhibited source for how serious torture can work very well: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SOF_0704_Torture,00.html

But keep in mind, an effective use of torture and good intelligence was not enough for France to keep Algeria.

- - - Updated - - -

Human beings break. Alas.

 

Okay, obviously I'm not going to get anything specific out of you, your words or anyone else's. Fine. But stop claiming to have things you don't have. You first claimed science and you even admit now you don't have the necessary science. Now you are claiming proof.....based on what, if not science? That's kinda the definition of proof= scientific evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And we've already established you don't have science.

And I've already been quite clear on my position in only supporting torture under extreme circumstances. It's more than I can say for your position. That's apparently scattered through 23 million search results.

 

But keep in mind, an effective use of torture and good intelligence was not enough for France to keep Algeria

So even "effective torture" doesn't work.

Thank you

- - - Updated - - -

But then "extreme circumstances" is pretty subjective...isn't it

 

Finally, someone hits on the truth. The use of drugs, psychotherapy, and hypnosis to get a person to talk.

Techniques like waterboarding and other relatively mild scare tactics probably work on the weakest cowardly people who'd sell out their own mother for a few bucks, but the tough ones who'd give their life to protect a secret are probably cracked best using the science of mind control involving a combination drugs and hypnosis or other techniques that the average American has no idea exists.

I'm just curious, has anyone here ever found out a secret or truth from friend or spouse when they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol? If so, how did you do it? I've heard of people talking in their sleep revealing information, but never actually witnessed it myself.

Now that would be an interesting topic!

 

I was recently watching a show 'Forensic Files' i think it's called where 1 guy identified 3 suspects in a murder. All 3 suspects were subjected to intense interrogations where they were deprived of sleep etc.. and after a little while, all 3 admitted to a crime they never committed. It turns out forensic evidence pointed to another person who was the actual killer. This type of stuff happens all the time, people will confess to stuff they didn't do and just say anything to make the torture stop. Let's say one of us is being tortured, what will we do? make things up to make it stop..

I think depriving people of sleep can be more effective than horrible forms like pulling nails, mutilating body parts etc.. because the latter forms create so such pain that the person will immediately say something, even garbage to make it stop. Even worse is someone suspected of something when he/she is innocent and having to go through such horrific treatment. Depriving someone of sleep may be much more effective because it doesn't involve horrific forms of torture but is depriving the brain of needed sleep, it also puts people in some state of in/out consciousness and confusion where they may be more likely to spill the beans. I don't see how this would be less effective than pulling someone's nails, breaking ribs, burning someone because this would just make people say absolutely anything in a moment of immense pain. Depriving someone of sleep is still torture but if the person turns out to be innocent, he can make up for sleep.. he wasn't physically scarred or borderline killed. Even so, as i point out in my example above, even sleep deprivation may make people say anything as they desperately try to get sleep... In the end, i just don't think torture is effective, it may work in some cases but it may not work in most cases and surely subject innocent people to horrific treatment..

 

Torture doesn't work

http://www.newsweek.com/neurosciencetorture-doesnt-work-and-heres-why-79365

In fact because of the nature of brain chemistry it CAN'T work reliably

 

So is the word "Torture". It's why everything must be clearly defined as it relates to our practices and policies.

 

That's a stupid question to ask and an intellectually bankrupt argument.

For instance, if someone kidnapped my child and gave me the option of either something bad happening to my child or me murdering you, guess what? I'd walk up to you in the street and strangle you to death on national television without thinking twice. Your argument would conclude that it would therefore be acceptable for someone to murder you in cold blood.

 

By that you mean you want to change the meaning of torture so that it can be excused as something other than what it is.