• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Redress, not everyone is gonna hold your hand through every tough issue. I feel my burden of proof is satisfied. You don't? I don't care. I'm not here just for you, and I've no expectation of you listening to or learning from anything I post.

Good day.
 
Redress, not everyone is gonna hold your hand through every tough issue. I feel my burden of proof is satisfied. You don't? I don't care. I'm not here just for you, and I've no expectation of you listening to or learning from anything I post.

Good day.

No one is asking for a hand holding. Something more than "because I say so" is all.
 
Because you should know so, most people do. It's pretty obvious.
 
Wow, they would tie you up, and hook your genitals to a voltage source in a nano second, yet you defend them against those trying to protect you? That's gratitude for ya.

I demand to see your link proving that. Photos would be good.
 
Isn't "waterboarding" specifically addressed as torture and illegal under the Geneva Conventions that the USA is signatory to?
 
Because you should know so, most people do. It's pretty obvious.

SO you basically are admitting that your belief is based on faith. I prefer evidence and facts myself. Get back to me when you have some/.
 
SO you basically are admitting that your belief is based on faith. I prefer evidence and facts myself. Get back to me when you have some/.

I'm not admitting any such thing. Is putting words in others' mouths your standard technique? You just turn someone into a strawman, swipe at it and move on? Have fun.
 
Isn't "waterboarding" specifically addressed as torture and illegal under the Geneva Conventions that the USA is signatory to?

Probably, but that was intended to be applied to uniformed service personnel fighting in a "conventional" war. I doubt that suicide bombers attacking civilians or flying commercial aircraft into commercial buildings is permitted under that "agreement" either. Wars with rules are no longer the norm.
 
Redress, you're in luck!

I'm bored. So, here's what we can do. I'll present an article (a blog) that illustrates how torture for verifiable information does, in fact, work. It's (presumably) a real world, true, example of such.

Are you ready?

As in previous cases, torture was used to obtain a PIN number, a type of specific, verifiable information. Unlike some people who claim to be experts on interrogation, criminals are well-aware that torture can be a viable tool for getting accurate information from a reluctant prisoner. Like all interrogation methods, success or failure depends on the who is asking the questions, the subject, the information in question, and various other factors that may differ in each case.

The Unreligious Right: Torture Works Again




Ok, did that change your mind?
 
Redress, you're in luck!

I'm bored. So, here's what we can do. I'll present an article (a blog) that illustrates how torture for verifiable information does, in fact, work. It's (presumably) a real world, true, example of such.

Are you ready?



The Unreligious Right: Torture Works Again




Ok, did that change your mind?

So editorials are evidence now?
 
So editorials are evidence now?

The evidence is the case cited therein. We'll call it "n1". There are countless examples, real world, of such success.
 
Except it is not. You apparently did not read.

What? A case is cited in which specific verifiable information was extracted via torture. There are countless real world, actual, happened, examples of such. But you're just gonna continue to deny reality?
 
What? A case is cited in which specific verifiable information was extracted via torture. There are countless real world, actual, happened, examples of such. But you're just gonna continue to deny reality?

No, information was extracted via interrogation. Whether the torture was the reason for the information being given up is unknown. I realize you have to accept things on faith, but for those who actually like facts, and who analyze what we read, there are lots of unanswered questions here.
 
No, information was extracted via interrogation. Whether the torture was the reason for the information being given up is unknown. I realize you have to accept things on faith, but for those who actually like facts, and who analyze what we read, there are lots of unanswered questions here.

Your claim that torture, the only thing the criminal reportedly did, did not extract the information is blind denial. You really think it is impossible to extract verifiable information via torture? How does that make any sense? How can you deny this reality?

This is exactly what I claimed would happen, though I didn't foresee the slew of personal attacks. Dude, I'm atheist and a PhD candidate. Where does this "accept things on faith" and other BS you're throwing come from?

Can someone debate without your turning them into a strawman by putting words in their mouth and calling them an idiot? What base and deplorable tactics. And you're a mod?
 
Last edited:
No, we're not. Read what I wrote about effectiveness or lack there of. You can argue with someone f you don't know what was said.
Either it's effective under certain circumstances or it's never effective. The two are mutually exclusive. God have mercy on your soul for not understanding basic logic.
 
Either it's effective under certain circumstances or it's never effective. The two are mutually exclusive. God have mercy on your soul for not understanding basic logic.

That is false. Again, go back a read what was said. It's not "effective" in any situation, but that does not mean, much like a stopped clock, you won't occasionally get information. But that is regardless of situation.
 
That is false. Again, go back a read what was said. It's not "effective" in any situation, but that does not mean, much like a stopped clock, you won't occasionally get information. But that is regardless of situation.
lol

There's three options:

#1- Always effective
#2- Never effective
#3- Sometimes effective, under the right circumstances.

That's it. This isn't rocket surgery. I'll assume you don't believe #1 is an option. Who knows what you think about #2 vs #3; you haven't been able to figure it out yourself, I don't think, even though #2 is laughable on both the theoretical, logical level and on the practical, experiential level.

Just so ****ing weird.
 
This what happens when you let a political agenda guide your logic and arguments, kids. Just say no.
 
lol

There's three options:

#1- Always effective
#2- Never effective
#3- Sometimes effective, under the right circumstances.

That's it. This isn't rocket surgery. I'll assume you don't believe #1 is an option. Who knows what you think about #2 vs #3; you haven't been able to figure it out yourself, I don't think, even though #2 is laughable on both the theoretical, logical level and on the practical, experiential level.

Just so ****ing weird.

Wrong. A broke clock is ineffective. It's correct twice a day, but it is ineffective at keeping time. You seem to not understand what is being said or what the word ineffective means. I'm also still convinced you haven't really read what is posted.
 
A former FBI man who interrogated an al Qaeda leader said Wednesday extreme techniques used by the Bush administration were "ineffective, slow and unreliable" and caused the prisoner to stop talking.

Ex-FBI Interrogator: Torture "Ineffective" - CBS News

Moreover, Zimbardo told LiveScience that torture is not an effective way to gather intelligence. Compared with police settings, in which detectives build social rapport and often get confessions without physical force, secret interrogation squads can alienate prisoners and elicit unreliable information, he said.

(For example, a Libyan detainee linked to al-Qaida falsely revealed under torture that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — a key reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Allen said.)

Study: U.S. Torture Techniques Unethical, Ineffective | LiveScience

But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them."

(snip)

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

After a contentious closed-door vote, theSenate intelligence committee approved a long-awaitedreportThursday concluding that harsh interrogation measures used by theCIA did not produce significant intelligence breakthroughs, officials said.

The 6,000-page document, which was not released to the public, was adopted by Democrats over the objections of most of the committee’s Republicans. The outcome reflects the level of partisan friction that continues to surround theCIA’s use of waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques four years after they were banned.

Report finds harsh CIA interrogations ineffective - Washington Post

Like I said, there are better sources in your library. Torture isn't new and has been well studied.
 
Torture, when defined as "the systematic infliction of pain to elicit a confession or divulge intelligence" is ineffective.

Enhanced interrogation techniques, however, are effective, because they don't inflict pain to elicit a confession or gain intelligence. Even when pain is inflicted, we've evolved far beyond mere beating and demanding. There are far more insidious tricks in play than simply beating someone until they talk. Deep psychological tricks accompany every tactic used. And I have no idea if beating or the infliction of pain (in the traditional torture sense) are any part of the EIT handbook, but I do know a little of what is in there. And it does work.
 
Torture, when defined as "the systematic infliction of pain to elicit a confession or divulge intelligence" is ineffective.

Enhanced interrogation techniques, however, are effective, because they don't inflict pain to elicit a confession or gain intelligence. Even when pain is inflicted, we've evolved far beyond mere beating and demanding. There are far more insidious tricks in play than simply beating someone until they talk. Deep psychological tricks accompany every tactic used. And I have no idea if beating or the infliction of pain (in the traditional torture sense) are any part of the EIT handbook, but I do know a little of what is in there. And it does work.

Beat a person's feet with copper wires and they'll tell you they killed whomever you want them to have killed. Keep a person awake for 72 hours and they'll tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. If the point is to make 'deep psychological tricks', whatever the **** that is, stop, you'll sing like a bird.

You don't even have to beat the person or use 'deep psychological tricks'.

Example: In California, many cases have come up where police intentionally 'coerce' various suspects/witnesses to testify against one specific suspect. This is done through insinuation of long prison terms. Many years after, we find out that suspect which got 25 years was actually innocent all along. No torture, no 'deep psychological tricks'.

And yet.... confessions are still made and people are still innocently accused/convicted.
 
Beat a person's feet with copper wires and they'll tell you they killed whomever you want them to have killed. Keep a person awake for 72 hours and they'll tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. If the point is to make 'deep psychological tricks', whatever the **** that is, stop, you'll sing like a bird.

You don't even have to beat the person or use 'deep psychological tricks'.

Example: In California, many cases have come up where police intentionally 'coerce' various suspects/witnesses to testify against one specific suspect. This is done through insinuation of long prison terms. Many years after, we find out that suspect which got 25 years was actually innocent all along. No torture, no 'deep psychological tricks'.

And yet.... confessions are still made and people are still innocently accused/convicted.

If I deprive you of sleep for say, three or four days straight.... and then threaten you with waterboarding or barking dogs or something really scary, until you answer my questions.... and for the first week of this I only ask you questions that I already know the answers to... are you telling me that your superhuman constitution wouldn't start to believe I am omnipotent, and that the only way to earn "good treatment" (what your or I would call "humane" or "normal") would be to continue telling the truth?

You guys keep talking about broken clocks being right twice a day, but you ignore the fact that battered women don't leave their dirt-bag husbands for a reason.
 
If I deprive you of sleep for say, three or four days straight.... and then threaten you with waterboarding or barking dogs or something really scary, until you answer my questions.... and for the first week of this I only ask you questions that I already know the answers to... are you telling me that your superhuman constitution wouldn't start to believe I am omnipotent, and that the only way to earn "good treatment" (what your or I would call "humane" or "normal") would be to continue telling
the truth?

Lol ... what? The point of my post is that if you did all those things: I'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear regardless of whether it's the truth or not. That salient point couldn't have been clearer. So, as it stands, the 'deep interrogation techniques' are reliable in that I'll tell you something - true, false, make belief - to make it stop. Not that they'll get the truth and nothing but the truth.

Now please, tell me about the 24 style scenario where there is a nuclear bomb strapped with a clock counting down and we've just so happened to catch the guy who set it up 30 minutes before the bomb is set to go off. If it's good enough, I'll write a script and sell it to the writers of Criminal Minds. They tend to use corny make belief story lines like that these days.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom