New report concludes that American torture is at least as effective in real life as it is in fantasy and fiction:
http://www.vox.com/2014/12/9/7339753...torture-report
Printable View
New report concludes that American torture is at least as effective in real life as it is in fantasy and fiction:
http://www.vox.com/2014/12/9/7339753...torture-report
The takeaway point is that the CIA lies. :o
Torture isn't always effective but to make the case that torture is never effective is ridiculous. I'd have a lot more respect for liberals if they used an honest argument. Stand on principal and say that torture is never OK even if it could lead to saved lives. Instead we get nonsense positions that say torture will never give useful information.
It takes seriousQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
talentstupidity to be this much of a hypocrite.
Wow. You even make John McCain a liberal with your nonsense. :picard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Torture is a violation of moral, ethical, Constitutional, and legal principles. It's a War Crime that violates international laws and treaties. It's wrong, and that's why using it is truly ineffective, not whether 'useful' information could be had.
You believe in prosecuting crimes and punishing criminals, right? So who should - or will - be prosecuted for these crimes? :donkey:
If your argument is just that and not "torture never works never ever never ever" then bravo. Just to clarify though you are stating that torture can lead to actionable intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, I'm saying that torture is wrong, even if it might lead to actionable intelligence. It never ever "works" because it makes us act like the despots, dictators, or terrorists we call enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since the US is a Superpower, considers itself an "Exceptional Nation", and spends so much time (and money) telling other nations how best to behave, that makes us especially bad at double standards and hypocrisies.
<btw, according to the report, and those who did the torturing, it didn't give them any "special" information that couldn't be gained in other ways, and even led to false information.>
The problem is there's no way to know whether the information extracted through torture is reliable or not (in fact, there's ample evidence that this kind of information is more likely to be made up), and information takes a while to process/investigate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm deeply impressed. There's this report on actual torture and whether it yields actionable intel - and Lewk still thinks that this is a worthwhile endeavour - evidence to the contrary?
Your buddy Jesus will have a field day with you, Lewk.
The sad thing is how long it took for "information" about torture to be investigated and processed by our legislators, then compiled into a synopsis, and eventually delivered to the American people. Sure, it takes a while for "information" to be de-classified and disseminated....but it shouldn't take over a decade!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yeh but the liberals say it's wrong so it must be okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
And since Jesus was a liberal, Lewk's head might explode?
The "rectal feedings" are especially disgusting and abhorrent. That bothered me more than water-boarding did. :sour:
I've long suspected that the US was using torture, in some form or other, and agencies were falling over themselves in attempts to deny it. But I never thought it was as brutal, or humiliating, as it was in reality.
This seemed like movie stuff for James Bond audiences, by making things seem so outrageous, and implausible, that people could be "entertained" by it, and not think it was real. Well wtf, it turns out to be worse, and quite real.
:mad:
I actually agree with Lewkowkski here, we should not be hanging the entire case against torture on it not working - what if it turns out it does work? Or if it doesn't currently work, what if techniques were developed that do work? Would that make it ok? We should stick with the moral case.
I would also stick to the moral case. No exceptions. Allowing exceptions will be held against you.
Of course we can also forget about the citizen rights all togheter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Well, Lewk's point was more about his typically idiotic mis-representation of the 'liberal' position. And as usual he gets it completely wrong. He stated I'd have a lot more respect for liberals if they used an honest argument. Stand on principal and say that torture is never OK even if it could lead to saved lives. Instead we get nonsense positions that say torture will never give useful information.
Which is patently false. The 'liberal' position, if such a black and white consensus could ever be reached, would be that indeed torture is always wrong, regardless of whether useful or actionable intelligence results. As GGT said, and agreed by Steely, earthjoker above, and indeed myself.
A typical straw man argument. Which is actually stupid. If someone has several arguments and one of them turns out to be wrong, it doesn't imply anything on the other arguments, unless the are based on the same wrong logic/assumptions.
I agree. Maybe he mistook criticism on his position as the main argument - it's morally wrong, always, and the argument that its necessary blows because it doesn't even work.
It's no secret that Lewk thinks failures should be lavishly rewarded "for participating" and everyone should get an A and a gold star no matter how much they suck.
Actually the report makes no such case; it states that torture doesn't work without much to back up that claim. Or the opposite for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I think that effectivity of torture very much is part of the moral question. How moral is it to refuse to torture one man you know to be a member of a terrorist organisation if you know you can extract information from him that will prevent the violent death of 100 innocent people. Saying it's 'never moral to torture' is a cop-out.
The fact that they didn't manage to extract any actionable intel suggests to me that it indeed does not work. That is, after all, the purpose of torture: To get information.
If you get no information, useless fact or even false statements (because after a while, your captive will tell you what you want to hear, after all) - then that is quite a strong indicator towards the "Not working, d'oh!" side.
And your example, Hazir, is the typical brainfart which is usually trotted out at this point. We have yet to see an actual, real-world scenario where torture would be the only way to prevent the death of those hypothetical 100 innocents.
Outside of a movie set or TV series like 24, that is.
Several years ago, I made a post questioning the "common wisdom" which media, and other posters, including Khend, were espousing that torture simply doesn't gather reliable information. I did not say the common wisdom was wrong but that it was slung about as truth even though there did not seem to be much good evidence either way. Something that sounded plausible and comforting but lacked support. Empirical testing was not, of course, possible. Assuming this report is accurate, it does seem to be to be sufficient to support their point. There certainly were a number of terrorist attacks either unsuccessfully attempted, or successful abroad, and we were engaging in torture to find out about them but it we weren't able to sift out information sufficient to prevent even one attack as the report alleges then there just doesn't seem to be grounds for it even if we ignore all the moral issues. If it's possible for it to produce results at all, the chance of it seems to be too low to be worthwhile.
I'm wondering why this particular report changed your mind. It doesn't do that for me so far; the drafters worked from the premise that it doesn't work and arrived at their desired conclusions. Shoddy work at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
@Ken : thanks for re-affirming my conviction that moralistic people should never be in power; humanity would not survive it.
It's always possible that the report is in fact biased, distorted, and inaccurate as the CIA alleges. It's certainly not as if the vast bulk of the investigation and even its executive report was made available rather than locked away by DC's passion for abusing the concept of official secrecy, and the investigation was political hay-making. But I probably trust the CIA on the topic even less than I do the Dem-party politicos. If they had a single reliable success story they or their defenders in Congress would have managed to leak it by now.
It is almost an immeasurable thing, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
There may have been a whole swathe of planned attacks which were prevented through the methods the CIA are accused of employing, and the few that you mention are indeed the very few that slipped through the net. There is really not much to go on in terms of a ratio of attacks prevented to attacks succeeded, let alone attacks prevented through torture.
Which is still an aside to the main thrust of the point being made in this thread; that torture is wrong regardless of whether it yields results or not.
http://www.foxnews.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
stopped reading there
Right, because our laws are sooooo amoral? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
moralistic =/= moral
If the same things were done to Americans held in captivity by other countries.....the US wouldn't have any problem calling it torture.
And we'd demand prosecuting individuals for war crimes, because that's easier than prosecuting an entire regime or government.
:sour:
But you are the good guys, aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Well, now that I think about it, this sentiment of yours is the pot calling the kettle black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Can we be the "good guys" if we have double standards? I don't think so.....
Of course you are not, but Bush Jr. & Co believed and still believes that.
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/ar...Report/383589/
McCain's beginning to sound a little too liberal
McCain has spoken out against torture for as long as he's been in politics.
I think he didn't like it when he underwent it himself already. Long before he was a politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki