Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Alric

The threat of suffering shouldn't even be an option. Thats the very defention of torturing.

So if I tell you that if you don't tell me about a plot to kill my daughter I am going to burn your leg with a hot iron, I am torturing you?

Well you have to be convincing. A simple threat doesn't mean anything if you have no way of backing it up. The thing is they are doing stuff to lead people to believe that its very true, and it is really going to happen.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well you have to be convincing. A simple threat doesn't mean anything if you have no way of backing it up. The thing is they are doing stuff to lead people to believe that its very true, and it is really going to happen.

So if I were convincing, I would be torturing you? You can easily avoid what has been threatened by doing the right thing. Is the law torturing people by telling them they will go to prison if they commit murder?

Going to jail is considered just punishment for murder. We are talking about excessive suffering, and you know it. Burning people with a hot iron falls under that.

Originally Posted by Alric

Going to jail is considered just punishment for murder. We are talking about excessive suffering, and you know it. Burning people with a hot iron falls under that.

Prison involves the threat of rape, the threat of being killed, the threat of being terrorized daily, a major loss of freedom, a very sad situation for the family, and all kinds of other bad things. I am not sayin prison is torture. I am saying that the idea of going there for decades is is something very scary, like the threat of being tortured for a little while. You said the scariness of the threat of being tortured is itself torture. You also said that the threat of suffering should never be an option. Prison involves suffering. If that is not bad enough for you, then would the government be torturing people just by convincingly telling them they will get hot irons on their legs for committing murder? Would making that threat regarding murder be torture?

Please answer me on this question this time...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So if I were convincing, I would be torturing you?

Remember that that question was in regard to your refusal to tell me about a plot you know about concerning the killing of my daughter. Would I be torturing you if you had the knowledge and had the option of giving me that knowledge to avoid a hot ironing? Would making that threat be torture when you can avoid the consequences by easily saving my daughter's life with your information?

By the way, what is your suggestion on how to get information out of terrorists about terrorist attacks in the making?

Very interesting article about the interrogation techniques of the past.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0502492_2.html

In contrast, here's one on the interrogation techniques of today.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1322866
(though I did find the "forcing them listen to the Slim Shady LP" kinda funny. )

From Universal Mind
I don't think that is the majority view of interrogators. It seems like it would be really bizarre if somebody who wants to commit suicide in order to kill you would tell you about his plans just because you had lunch with him and did a lot of hanging out with him. I don't think Saddam Hussein was found in a hole in the desert because some investigators buddied up with somebody close to Hussein. I see a significant possibility that when that information was revealed, the person talking had a butcher knife up his ass.

Unsurprisingly, Saddam's hideout was discovered when local civilians sympathetic to the U.S. provided the tip. At least, that's what I heard on the news when he was found.

The most disturbing part of torture as a policy is its implicit inclusion of innocents as plausible victims. In one example, a terrorist knows of an imminent attack, but has been unresponsive under torture. Then, his family may be taken in and tortured in front of him. Or, at least, they could be 'aggressively interrogated' in front of him. As long as it isn't lethal, the benefit is greater than the cost, no matter how many suffer. When the ends justify the means, the means can get very, very unpleasant.

The flaw in that arguement is that its the duty of the people running the prison to stop people from being raped or murdered or beat up. Yea in a lot of cases they do a poor job, probably because the jails are overpopulated and stuff. If you do stick someone in a position where they will be raped or murder and do nothing to stop it, then yes thats torture. If you want to use that arguement to say that some prisons are overly cruel then go ahead. In some cases that might actually be true.

And yes what you said would be a simple form of torture. Though if you did burn him, and then told him he is going to get it again if he doesn't talk, that would be closer to what we are actually talking about.

And being able to avoid the consequences by saying everything doesn't change it in anyway. There is also a few ideas on ways to get information from terrorists already posted on here, and they have been proven to work.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Juroara, I was asking what is the best way to get a terrorist (who is already a terrorist) to talk, not what isn't.

Also, the threat of death and the threat of suffering are two different things.

I did answer in my post

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(though I did find the "forcing them listen to the Slim Shady LP" kinda funny. )

"The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said."

I know how they felt, they used to play that at my gym... Now that's a horrible thing to do.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Unsurprisingly, Saddam's hideout was discovered when local civilians sympathetic to the U.S. provided the tip. At least, that's what I heard on the news when he was found.

The most disturbing part of torture as a policy is its implicit inclusion of innocents as plausible victims. In one example, a terrorist knows of an imminent attack, but has been unresponsive under torture. Then, his family may be taken in and tortured in front of him. Or, at least, they could be 'aggressively interrogated' in front of him. As long as it isn't lethal, the benefit is greater than the cost, no matter how many suffer. When the ends justify the means, the means can get very, very unpleasant.

I definitely don't believe in bringing in innocent family members. I don't even believe in threatening people when it is not certain that the right person has been brought in. What I do believe in is taking known terrorists and scaring them into talking about what they should be talking about any way. It has stopped terrorist attacks in the past. It is what worked on Khallid Sheik Muhammed, and it can work on people in the future.

Originally Posted by juroara

I did answer in my post

No, you told me how we should not get information out of terrorists. I asked how we should.

Originally Posted by Alric

The flaw in that arguement is that its the duty of the people running the prison to stop people from being raped or murdered or beat up. Yea in a lot of cases they do a poor job, probably because the jails are overpopulated and stuff. If you do stick someone in a position where they will be raped or murder and do nothing to stop it, then yes thats torture. If you want to use that arguement to say that some prisons are overly cruel then go ahead. In some cases that might actually be true.

And yes what you said would be a simple form of torture. Though if you did burn him, and then told him he is going to get it again if he doesn't talk, that would be closer to what we are actually talking about.

And being able to avoid the consequences by saying everything doesn't change it in anyway. There is also a few ideas on ways to get information from terrorists already posted on here, and they have been proven to work.

Even the best prisons can't prevent rape and murder 100% of the time. But even without the rape and killing and so forth, prison is a total nightmare for most people. You said that people should not be threatened with suffering. The threat of prison is a threat of suffering.

I don't think something is torture when it is only a threat and the person can stop it by doing the moral thing. There is an inescapability through viable options factor to torture.

I don't agree that buddying up with terrorists who are willing to kill themselves to kill you is more effective for getting information out of them than giving them offers they can't refuse.

It really doesn't matter since they are doing more than just threatening people. They are actually carrying through with the threats, and thats obviously torture.

As for them wanting to kill us, if you remove the reason for them wanting to do it, they are going to be much more willing to talk. There is a lot of hate some times, and a lot of it is based on misunderstanding or things that are not true. If you talk to them and remove the hate for us, they will want to talk. How is that hard to understand?

Torture-smorture. Sure, if you broaden the definition of "killing" wide enough, giving birth is actually signing a death warrant.

I don't think the real issue is whether any interrogation method is considered torture or not. The real issue is that this country is so full of bleeding-heart do-gooders that, unless you tell them you're feeding our most mortal of enemies steak and lobster and providing them with 24/7 pampering and sexual favors then there's always an outcry of morons who can't grasp the fact that war isn't pretty. And sometimes when the future of our nation is at stake, people who have our ultimate destruction and downfall set as top priority must be "treated harshly" in order to get the job done.

In other words, we don't need to know everything that goes on. Hence, we aren't going to be told the entire truth.

Yea because waterboarding and denying them steak is so close to each other. I don't know how you can even try to compare the two.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Prison involves the threat of rape, the threat of being killed, the threat of being terrorized daily, a major loss of freedom, a very sad situation for the family, and all kinds of other bad things. I am not sayin prison is torture. I am saying that the idea of going there for decades is is something very scary, like the threat of being tortured for a little while. You said the scariness of the threat of being tortured is itself torture. You also said that the threat of suffering should never be an option. Prison involves suffering. If that is not bad enough for you, then would the government be torturing people just by convincingly telling them they will get hot irons on their legs for committing murder? Would making that threat regarding murder be torture?

you've brought up a completely different issue here with prison, but at the same time its note worthy.

prison should be about losing your freedom to be apart of a society whose laws you broke. but prison should not be about losing your rights as a human being, which is what a lot of prisons do. its sad to hear about guys getting anal raped in prison or diseases from sanitary issues. or worse, getting murdered, especially if they are in jail for something superficially harmless to others.

Originally Posted by Alric

Yea because waterboarding and denying them steak is so close to each other. I don't know how you can even try to compare the two.

But I'm sure it will help if we give them lobster and steak when we "talk to them" about the long list of reasons they want to kill us, such as our party lifestyle influence on the world and our non-Islamic status.

Have you read Bin Laden's letter to America? Please do so you can realize that Al Qaeda and such are not people we can just "talk to". They are the Islamic version of a cross between Jerry Falwell and Charles Manson times a million. They are not good ole peace loving folks who are going to say, "Oh, gosh darnit, we just had a misunderstanding. We want peace too. We don't want to dedicate our lives to making Americans extinct any more."

These techniques are used to create shock because in a state of shock there's typically a breaking point which makes the hostage feel more complacent. It's pretty much the exact same thing as from 1984, and intention to create shock to the point the prisoner breaks and can be rewritten, like shock treatment in a psychiatric ward.

I can understand a very coarse sort of "we need to just get the information because the consequences are dire" apprach, but its a bad excuse considering the blow-back it causes and maybe if we examined what left us in the position where we need to use toruture we wouldnt be in that situation again and again and again. I do consider chock therapy to be torture, btw.

Juroara, how do you think we should go about getting terrorists to talk? I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

Omnius Deus, it would be interesting to know your answer to that too.

You can talk to everyone, and they all have their reasons for doing what they do. The reason the government always gives that they hate us because we are 'free' is total bull.

Whats ironic is that the government is always the first to say talking works far better than torture. They are always having the people running the prisons and stuff coming on tv and saying they don't personally torture people because it never works, instead they talk to them and get to know them better and the terrorist open up to them. So if the government even agrees that there are better ways than torture, why do we still do it?

The only reason I can see is that they know torture is wrong so they try to put up a nice face and say they don't do it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Juroara, how do you think we should go about getting terrorists to talk? I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

Omnius Deus, it would be interesting to know your answer to that too.

You have a narrow dichotomy, that someone is either a terorist or not. The people we have in captivity aren't planning to blow buildings up, they just possibly know something about it.

And come on um, if our FBI couldn't even get the names and photos right for the 9/11 hijackers then how are they supposed to get the right people, here?

But in answer to your question, the way to do it is stop occupying foreign countries so people no longer want to hurt us.

Originally Posted by juroara

the hard part, and the moral choice would be - to show this terrorist why it is beneficial to him to release information. thats the hard part, but the only way to beat terrorism.

this was my answer universal. although, I'm talking specifically about the terrorism we have today, deep rooted into religious beliefs. its very different combating terrorism spawned from a political view than a religious view. I don't think I have to explain that to you, I think you understand very well how much harder it is to debunk religious beliefs than a political one or maybe you don't.

I'm talking about terrorists who really do believe they are in a holy war. the reason why I say beneficial to them to release information is because - to sell out information against their Gods wishes can in their mind serve them a much worse punishment than anything Earth has to offer. . . a life of suffering or an eternity in hell for betraying God?? Which do you choose??

Similar scenarios DID happen to christians back in the day. And no amount of suffering made them speak against their Christ, thus they received saint status from generations to come. And again similar scenarios happened to the Jews. Understanding that religious history has shown that being defiant against your enemy is 'good' and receives 'saint' status, and God rewards you for the suffering your enemy puts you through, why would a religious terrorist talk???? If God is going to reward you, what can a man do to take that away??

Getting them to release information works when they realize, they aint fighting Gods war. And thats the end of terrorism. Because when God is not on your side and God is not going to reward you, well, you're in a sticky situation and God sure as hell won't get you out. Now maybe its time to talk.

The entire infrastructure of terrorism can destroy itself when the more religious followers understand they are just being used by political terrorists. And thats the angle I would use.

This is difficult and very easy. Its easy for us because we can clearly see how following this or that leader benefits no one, no followers, no cult, just the leaders. Very easy to see how what they have done is not even supported by their own religion they claim to uphold. But when you hate, you've lost touch with reality, and you can't see anymore. That's why its difficult.

I simply don't think were dealing with a political terrorism, thus political tactics won't work.

Originally Posted by Alric

The reason the government always gives that they hate us because we are 'free' is total bull.

Actually it's not bull; it's very much spot on. Our freedom to not follow their teachings and views is exactly why they consider us their enemy.

Whats ironic is that the government is always the first to say talking works far better than torture.

Umm, you can only "talk" to rational people. We aren't dealing with rational people. You conveniently omit that aspect in your little make love-not war motif you have in your mind.

When you get done playing footsies with a cactus, try something that actually works.

The only reason I can see is that they know torture is wrong so they try to put up a nice face and say they don't do it.

No, they say what they do in largly because the "torture" we do is miles away from the barbarism displayed by the enemy in far lesser cases. It's all about perspective. You should get some.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You have a narrow dichotomy, that someone is either a terorist or not.

Uh... yeah! You either are or aren't a terrorist. And if you are withholding critical knowledge then you are aiding and abetting, which makes you a terrorist. Duh

The people we have in captivity aren't planning to blow buildings up, they just possibly know something about it.

See: above.

But in answer to your question, the way to do it is stop occupying foreign countries so people no longer want to hurt us.

Every time we have this annoying discussion, there's always the group that completely misinterprets cause and effect. Welcome to that group once again. Looks like you're a card-carrying member. Right this way, Mr. Deus, your table is ready.

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm talking about terrorists who really do believe they are in a holy war.

Not only do they think they are fighting a holy war: They ARE fighting a holy war. Just because WE aren't doesn't mean THEY aren't.

Similar scenarios DID happen to christians back in the day. And no amount of suffering made them speak against their Christ, thus they received saint status from generations to come.

RIIIIIIGHT, uh-huh. Yup, Except that.... NO. And I suppose you think that not a single person confessed to being a witch to avoid being burned at the stake. Don't ya'? That's what I thought

There's a good reason that torture has been used traditionally: it works!

Getting them to release information works when they realize, they aint fighting Gods war.

I agree that getting them to see the error of their ways is the ultimate solution to terrorism but I don't agree that it's the only way to get information.

The entire infrastructure of terrorism can destroy itself when the more religious followers understand they are just being used by political terrorists. And thats the angle I would use.

Very true indeed.

I simply don't think were dealing with a political terrorism, thus political tactics won't work.

The first part is right to a large degree and the second part is wrong to a very large degree.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You have a narrow dichotomy, that someone is either a terorist or not. The people we have in captivity aren't planning to blow buildings up, they just possibly know something about it.

And come on um, if our FBI couldn't even get the names and photos right for the 9/11 hijackers then how are they supposed to get the right people, here?

But in answer to your question, the way to do it is stop occupying foreign countries so people no longer want to hurt us.

I have no idea where you get your bizarre criticisms of me personally. You don't seem to be able to make a post addressed to me without doing it, yet you usually pull strange claims out of thin air when you do it. I said a person is either a terrorist or not? Where do you come up with this stuff? It is truly amazing what you are willing to completely make up.

The people we have in captivity are known to be members of terrorist organizations and/or part of terrorist plots/attacks that have happened or were/are in the making. We are not pulling random people off the streets because of minor little tiny what ifs. That is what the Hussein regime did. Are you thrilled that we got rid of such a government?

If you will read Bin Laden's letter to America, you will see that Al Qaeda demands far more than withdrawal from the Middle East. And doing so will give them reason to see us as cowards, which is exactly what Bin Laden has directly said was Al Qaeda's rationale for concluding that they could handle a war with the United States. Do you remember Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia when things got rough? That selfish political move on Clinton's part gave Al Qaeda the confidence necessary to pull the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden has argued exactly that on video.

Originally Posted by Alric

You can talk to everyone, and they all have their reasons for doing what they do. The reason the government always gives that they hate us because we are 'free' is total bull.

Read Bin Laden's letter to America, and you will see that you are far from the truth. I think I might even start a thread on that letter. I am sick of telling people to read it and see that they are wrong. Al Qaeda despises our party lifestyle, and they hate the party influence we have on the rest of the world. It is a fact. I am not making that up. Read the letter.

Originally Posted by Alric

Whats ironic is that the government is always the first to say talking works far better than torture. They are always having the people running the prisons and stuff coming on tv and saying they don't personally torture people because it never works, instead they talk to them and get to know them better and the terrorist open up to them. So if the government even agrees that there are better ways than torture, why do we still do it?

Scaring people into doing the right thing is not torture. And who in the Bush administration has said that talking is the answser? They refuse to meet with terrorist leaders because they know they are dealing with wild animals who are not the least bit interested in peace. They are right about that. If you ever get attacked by terrorists, you will understand what we are dealing with.


Juroara, you finally (somewhere in another one of your incredibly long posts) gave a somewhat specific answer to my question. We teach severely brainwashed (often from childhood) terrorists that what they are doing is not what God wants. Good luck with that one! How exactly do you propose accomplishing that amazing feat?

There are many people around the world that doesn't follow their teachings and they have no problems with many of them. Thinking they hate us only because we are 'free' is stupid and untrue. Most of their reasons have to do with all the stuff we do in the area.

Your problem is that you think none of them are rational. Many are misguided, many believe things about us that are not true, a lot of them hate us and that clouds their judgement. The thing is when you talk to them, you can get through with a lot of them. If you clear up the misunderstandings and get rid of the hate they are the same as us. Even if they are not rational, once they are sitting in jail facing the rest of their life there, they have time to think about it and time to calm down.

I never said to be nice to them, or to give them anything special. And of course you don't let them go. All I am saying is you have to show some basic respect for other human beings, which means you dont torture them.

Saying our torture is less painful than their torture is stupid. Its still torture, and its still just as wrong.