The problem is that it's impossible to know if the torture will result in information to stop the ticking time bomb and it prevents the more reliable method of securing the information by conventional interrogation techniques. The interrogator could use torture, not get the information, and cause the "time bomb" to go off when conventional interrogation would have been far more likely to have prevented it. History establishes less than a 15% (closer to 3% or less) chance of stopping the time bomb using torture and over a 50% chance using conventional interrogation techniques and once torture is used then conventional techniques no longer work.
That is not at all correct. Wow...the dumb. I'd I need to know where the little girl that was kidnapped is how would we know if the kidnapper won't tell us? But yet in this hypothetical situation if we tortured him until he gave a location, we could have a unit verify the information quickly and easily. If it's wrong, continue torture. At no point in that situation does your statement hold anywhere close to being true. Lol I'm baffled you lack the critical thinking to understand that and would even make such an idiotic statement.
History shows no such thing. If you have 24 hours to find the bomb and the opponent is radical, torture is objectively the most proficient manner. If you do not trust the government with that power, or are morally against it is one thing. But to pretend it doesn't work is ignorant.
So you would keep torturing somebody because they wouldn't tell you something they don't know. Thanks for clarifying your evil nature.
Never once said that. Matter of fact I've stated the exact opposite but you clearly have not been paying attention. I don't think you possess the critical thinking to participate well here.
The problem becaomes it will almost always be the SUSPECTED kidnapper. And if you are wrong you tortured a innocent man....probably for a long time since he would not talk
Yet I have given very specific circumstances. Such as video evidence and admittance to eliminate that possibility.
All kinds of people who are innocent admit to crimes. Even video can hard unless you get a perfectly clear picture. DNA was faked in hundreds of cases in boston.
With "clear" video removing any doubt and or admittance in my opinion justifies torture. If they admit to the crime they didn't commit, if done with any malice to protect the actual suspect then that's on them. There is always possibly going to be some freak case that happens where there was some unknown unpredictable variable. That doesn't discredit all of the good that can come from utilizing torture in very specific cases where guilt is known, as much as humanly possible.
torture is illegal under international law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States USA has signed unto that law which means the Bush regime committed a crime because of Abu Ghraib. Too bad the UN kissed up to that traitor.
Repeating the same claim over and over without providing any evidence of the validity of the claim is not an argument. On the other hand we have to following that indicates torture is unreliable at best. Historical case study: The CIA under the Bush adminstration made many claims of successfully obtaining valuable information by the use of torture but upon investigation all of the claims were proven false. In most cases the CIA already had the information that was obtained by conventional interrogations methods and then torture the person until they admitted that the information was true. The person being tortured may not have even known it was true but would admit to or say anything just to stop the torture. Any information obtained by torture can never be assumed to be true and the person committing the torture can never distinguish between what may be true or what may be a lie. The results are so unreliable that it's really a waste of time to even torture someone in the hopes of obtaining good information. http://phys.org/news/2012-03-interrogational-torture-effective-purely-sadistic.html https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2 Historically torture has only been effective related to just one issue: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2012/1...derstanding-the-mystery-of-false-confessions/ If you ever want to get someone to confess to a crime they didn't commit then torture them until they confess. There's no "pretending it doesn't work" because of all the examples provided above. What can't be proven is that torture is a successful and reliable means of obtaining accurate information because no evidence exists that will support that claim and it's "ignorant" to keep making a claim for which no evidence even exists.
My claim is reality. Your evidence is politically motivated. The truth is exactly as I've said it to be. It is self attesting. Torture works, under the specific circumstances that I've put out. Your evidence does not take into account any circumstances I've put out or requirements. Yours is a black and white radical opinion, when there is a gray area as is those whom you cite. In fact, you simply have ignored everything I've said. You are objectively wrong.
Hate filled right wingers laughed at the innocents who died at Abu Ghraib thanks to traitor Bush and his supporters.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wIKjAA&usg=AFQjCNFedJQy01HEL2-R5t93_nwsXfgKjQ Liberal doesn't care about white people being shot. One of millions of hateful liberals. But lets be real, you already knew this.
Lots of profane and utterly senseless exchange on that video which fails to address the issue or offer solution. But such is the mind set of the right wing which is more interested in conflict rather than correction of social ills.
