Torture works, get over it

...and you think that why?

 

Easy. You don't torture a person to confess something as you will get a false confession or at best, one that is not reliable so, you have information leading you to this person and his whereabouts on or at the particular time you are interested in and then ask him where he was at that particular time and explain that we know where he was and what he was doing but are simply verifying the information and then, when he lies to the questions you already know the answer to you torture him. When he provides new information you go back to the other subject and play the same game and in this way, neither know how much the other has told so are not sure if a lie will work or not. The operation takes weeks and is not a pass/fail based on one simple question but information we know that the subjects are only filling in gaps not knowing what gaps we are missing hence, they have no idea as to what answer will garner further discomfort.

In the end, once a fuller picture is painted more names to verify the story are provided and those individuals are either picked up or persons associated with same are and questioned. If we know 90% of the answers and have only two or three subjects all providing information with some of them only being in the vicinity and witnessing the presence of the others that's more than enough to play this game effectively with.

 

They're missing the point, if the subject is convinced you have most of the information and it is enough to provide the impression they know pretty much all of it and are simply verifying what we already know they are more likely to just say the heck with it and wonder why they are bothering to be put through this discomfort for no reason and can open up without revealing anything we don't already know. in order to do this effectively you need two subjects at the very least which, is more often the case when a suspect is apprehended. Neither knows which subject is being asked the same questions or how much they have revealed so cannot assertion what answer we already know to be true or not so, when faced with extreme discomfort will seriously weigh the pros and cons of simply providing us with information they suspect we already know.

 

Your conclusion isn't what those neurologists concluded. Here, i'll help:

All that article is saying is that torture CAN be counterproductive if what you are seeking is long-winded detailed accounts of history and you are illiciting information only during the actual process of torture when the brain is highly stressed. And even then, they have no idea what the real results of torture actually are.

They are NOT saying that "torture doesn't work". Indeed, the article explains they would be quite interested in knowing the results of it.


IMO while they have a point, it's hardly a previously unknown one. Torture victims babble while being tortured? Shocker. No wonder it's usually accompanied with frequent periods of rest for the victim.

What this article is describing is how brainwashing works. Guess what? There's a difference between brainwashing your victim and getting information out of him. You guys might have trouble understanding the difference, let alone developing methods to account for it, but I'm willing to bet there are a LOT of torturers throughout history that were much better.

 

May I suggest you speak to your psychiatrist about why that mode of action so obviously appeals to you?

 

Not research just liberal propaganda

 

The OP gave examples of torture working and helping win a war

 

Sleep deprivation is effective but if the information you need is time sensitive then it is not an option

 

You ran from my question. Someone having your child hidden somewhere and refusing to tell you where is no different than a terrorist having a bomb hidden somewhere. You ran you lose.

 

Torture worked very well for the French in Algeria, but its use was very limited, and the French often find themselves in helpless position.

Captain Paul Aussaresses subsequently was briefed by the Chief of Police of Algiers, in 1955.

"Imagine for an instant that you are opposed to the concept of torture and you arrest someone who is clearly implicated in the preparation of a terrorist attack. The suspect refuses to talk. You do not insist. A particularly murderous attack is launched. What will you say to the parents of the victims, to the parents of an infant, for example, mutilated by the bomb to justify the fact that you did not utilize all means to make the suspect talk?"

"I would not like to find myself in such a situation,” Aussaresses responded.

"Yes, but conduct yourself always as if you will, and you will see which is the most difficult: to torture a confirmed terrorist or explain to the parents of the victims that it is better to allow dozens of innocents to die, than to make one who is culpable suffer."

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SOF_0704_Torture,00.html

General Jacques Massu, Commander of the French forces in Algeria, received an extensive briefing on the battle. Amazed that only two of Aussaresses men had died while the rebels lost 500 men, Massu recommended promotion for the officers. His supervisors in Paris did not share his sentiment as the French public was horrified by the killing. There was no reward for the men of the second brigade. Though they had saved thousands of civilians from a disaster, the Republic did not recognize them.

Without Aussauresses’ intelligence, the populace of Philippeville would more than likely have suffered the same atrocities in d’El-Halia, where Aussaresses had not anticipated an attack.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SOF_0704_Torture,00.html

Does the use of torture guarantee victory in war - of course not. Should the captured terrorist in Belgium have been tortured to stop a major atrocity? Of course. But water boarding would probably have been enough to extract everything they needed to know.

 

Torture is something that is done by hard men who are doing what they feel needs to be done...and don't run around advertising, bragging or condoning it. The society that condones and promotes torture isn't a society...it's a mob that doesn't mind sending its own off to be tortured in turn.

 

Before anyone claims that waterboarding is not torture, they should actually experience it.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...Waterboarding-is-torture/stories/200905260184

 

Yes. All professional military interrogators are liberal propagandists.

- - - Updated - - -

24 is not a documentary.

 

It works if the people you have know something of value, but if you are torturing someone who doesn't have the information you want or need, you are sent on wild goose chases with the misinformation gathered from someone who will tell you anything to make it stop.

AGAIN, the problem with torture is we have signed so many agreements that guarantee we won't do it, so when we do, we are the bad guys, even though the people being tortured are disgusting animals who deserve nothing but what they get. Funny how that works.

 

And there are far more examples of torture not working and giving unreliable or blatantly false information.

 

Water boarding and worse than water boarding has been used on Army trainees for decades.. The Army does not torture its own soldiers. Which is not to say that being in the presence of a DI, especially a DI waking you up before sunrise does not seem like torture.

 

You are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wrong it's stupid.

Water boarding is used on US troops are SERE school. Survival Escape Resistance and Evasion school.

You know what that "Resistance" stands for? It means Resistance to Torture and Interrogation. They are allowed to break bones in SERE school. To say the US Army doesn't torture it own is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing LIE.

Here's the difference though: every position that would require you to go to SERE is volunteer. You sign waivers before you go.

 

This seems to be a very questionable opinion piece. It refers to the turning of German spies but can only speculate that torture was even used, let alone that it was the key to turning them. It doesn’t have any references and the image it presents doesn’t quite fit with primary sources I’ve read about that element of the war (such as the implied competence and commitment of German spies). I’m also not sure where he’s getting the idea that WW2 in general is seem as being an especially ethical conflict.

As it happens, this section was lifted from a much longer article that actually reaches the exact opposite conclusion. That while they eventually extracted apparently accurate information in that case (though there isn’t anything to say everything he told them was entirely true), the wider picture is much more inconsistent; http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/w...s-wrong-with-torturing-a-qaeda-higher-up.html

 

You have been misinformed. Army infantry trainees, including draftees, received escape and evasion training which involved attempting to escape capture an night through an area peppered with an opposition force motivated to capture them. Upon capture they were sent back to a "POW camp" Where they were subjected to unsophisticated "water boarding" and some were subjected to genital shock from a hand crank generator. Almost all of those captured signed confessions etc. much to the chagrin of the training cadre.

Does this prove that water boarding or torture works?

 

Give me a few hours and a set of dental tools and I'll have you confessing to being part of a conspiracy to murder Obama and install Trump as President for Life. That doesn't mean the confession is accurate or that any such plot exists.

 

BTW, there are no more draftees. Your information is out of date by 40 years.

 

Hi, former US Army Infantryman here. No, we don't go through torture training, we don't go back to a "POW camp" if caught, that's SERE school. Waterboarding is most definitely torture and in WWII we prosecuted some Japanese soldiers for war crimes because they water boarded our people. We have also court marshaled our own soldiers for using it. We have jailed our own police for doing it. Waterboarding is torture, and that is why it is used in SERE school. It is not going to leave a mark like putting out cigarettes on someone back or ripping out fingernails, but it is definitely torture. If it wasn't, we wouldn't use it for training related to resisting interrogation that includes torture. No idea why anyone thinks forcing someone to go through simulated drowning is not torture. You'd have to be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot or brainwashed.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/waterboarding-torture-japan-world-war-ii
http://www.npr.org/2007/11/03/15886834/waterboarding-a-tortured-history

 

LOL! Read again - that was my point.

 

Hence this: "Water boarding and worse than water boarding has been used on Army trainees for decades". Ddy

 

Which means torture is ineffective and unreliable when it comes to giving actionable intelligence.

- - - Updated - - -

And those techniques are torture. They are used to train resistance to torture.

When you claimed the US Army doesn't torture its own troops you were either lying or completely ignorant.