Interrogation

So, as we all know, the big news in the US lately is about the use of torture to interrogate.

My thoughts on this matter:

Why would you be against it? Why would Obama reveal torture techniques to the public anyway?

Interrogations are a neccessity to national security. Sure, the victim of the interrogation goes through pyschological and physical anguish, but have we forgotten what we're dealing with? Have we forgotten the lives that could be saved through finding out crucial information?

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house, stated that they had no idea what went on during the interrogations, but a leak in information suggests that many congressmen and Nancy Pelosi were briefed and some were even given tours and were shown examples of what they were about to do. Why the change of heart now? Why only have a strong resolve to stop it now, when they were completely fine with it during the time of September 11? Have they forgotten the fear of losing thousands of people?

It just frustrates me and I wonder what these people think when they talk about this issue. Interrogation techniques have already proven themselves to provide information. In interrogating the people in Guantanamo Bay, we've even stopped some acts of terrorism from happening.

Example: Binyam Mohamed was also planning to blow up an apartment block in the United States when he was arrested, investigators claimed.

Lives saved.

What is one person's well being for the lives of hundreds and more? Not only that, if the person who's being interrogated is a person who might have become a perpetrator, then what have we got to complain for?

I'll end it here. Your thoughts?

well, many people base their arguments on what our country is based on. Many people are unaware of anything that happens outside of our country, and many never even travel outside of the US. People think things like 'everything is perfect here, so why cant everyone be like us?' so we try to force our ideals upon unsuspecting countries under the guise of media and entertainment. Torture is one of those things people denounce because the word itself is openly frowned upon, because of its very nature.

Simply said, people hate the word because of what it means, but do not realize that is it needed

Unfortunately, you are correct. People seem to forget that in order for our ideals to continue, there must be sacrifices. Freedom isn't free... We would like a country where we don't want to "torture", but there's a difference between what we want, and reality.

The thing that gets me is that, the very same people would probably turn on their government for a tragedy that could have been prevented by interrogation. It seems the people only want to live for now, and not think of what's to come...

A couple of months ago, a guy wrote a book explaining how torture didn't work. This guy was in the know, too. He wasn't just some guy who did research. He was in the military, and he had seen people tortured, and he had seen peaceful interrogation. He said that torture rarely works and that peaceful interrogation works a lot of the time. Peaceful interrogation also takes a lot less time. I believe the guy said that he could talk to a random solider and find out plans in two, three days. That's pretty fucking fast. Plus, not resorting to water boarding means that we don't have to give up our morals.

I think a lot of people who are for torture simply like the thought of an eye for an eye; these soldiers are fighting us, so why shouldn't we treat them like shit when we get the chance? But that doesn't make sense, since if we lose any of our soldiers, who are killing them, we raise a gigantic fuss if they are mistreated. A country cannot beat POWs half to death and then get mad if someone beats their soldiers half to death when captured.

To bring up an artistic example that a lot of people will recognize - in Star Trek: The Next Generation, at one point, Captain Picard is captured and tortured. He never gives up any information. He takes the beatings, he takes the hunger, he takes the humiliation, and he gives up nothing. Because he was a good soldier. He was never going to give up any information. No matter what. When a soldier like that is captured, he's not going to talk, even if he is tortured. But when a soldier that is weak is captured, a soldier that may give up secrets, not a lot has to be done to get him to speak. You don't have to torture him; you just talk to him and tell him that he won't die on the battlefield if he tells you what you want to know.

That's the way it is. There are two types of soldiers, those who will never give up information, even if tortured, and those who will give up information without being tortured. Maybe they need to be buttered up or bribed or promised safety, but they do not need to be tortured. So why should we sully ourselves as a people and use something as archaic as torture?

One guy writing a book without hard evidence. Not the best source for comfort. Looking at it the other way, try putting yourself into the shoes of someone who's been captured. You know information they want. Now, in all honesty, would you cave from peaceful interrogation or would you give in after being tortured? The answer is simple: if you aren't treated like crap and there is no threat on your life and there is nothing you would fear, you wouldn't feel the need to give up information. On the other hand, if you were tortured and you hated it and you feared for your life, instinct would be screaming at you everyday to give up the information. Which one sounds the most convincing from your OWN perspective?

If we go with what you say, that hardened mind wouldn't let the person give information even if they're treated badly, then what's to say they'll give information if they're treated nice? Common sense dictates that there's a higher chance that you'll get information using torture techniques.

Humanity is lost when you torture a person, but I would feel much worse if we had the power to extract information but didn't and lost more people in the process.


You are probably correct. Many people want "revenge" for what's been done to them, and would like nothing better to have the perpetrator tortured. In my opinion it doesn't matter how people feel towards the the person in question. I would be lying if I said I didn't feel any hate for the perpetrator but I place higher priority in saving the lives of our own citizens. As I mentioned in my opening post, saving a multiple lives for the sanity of one is a cost I'm willing to pay.

Also, the people that are getting tortured joined on the other side knowing this could happen to them. Terrorist cells are purely voluntary. They knew what they were getting into from the start and knew this would be brought on them if they were captured. Then there's a simple answer for prevention: Don't join terrorist cells. Torture not only gives us information to fight back and prevent terrorism, it also sends out a warning to all those who are considering to terrorize innocent civilians. I think it's quite an effective way to do it.


Television and movie examples are completely different from reality. I think that's one of the problem for most who are against interrogation is they don't want reality. They want to live in an ideal world where everyone love each other. The problem is, life's a bitch, and in order to stay alive and to prevent even more cruelty, we must have a line of defense, and one form of that is interrogation.


There's always a cracking point for humans and eventually people give in. That's what interrogators do.

As for bribing people that they'll be safe if they give information; That tactic is used BEFORE we perform torture for more information. Do you think we would go straight to torture because it's fun? No, it's out of necessity. Also, what better way of promising them safety than to let them taste death and letting them mull it over? I know it may sound cruel, but as I said, life is cruel.

Here's an analogy. You want to have sex with a partner you met at a bar, but you're afraid that he/she might have STDs, but it doesn't feel as good to use rubber. So, would you use rubber, or risk contracting an STD?

Same with interrogation. It may not "feel as good" but it's protection we need.

There are FOUR lights!

Anyway, I'm pretty much with Shaggy on this one.
For one, what they call "peaceful interrogation" isn't just some guy in a room giving a terrorist a cheeseburger and saying, "come on, guy, be a pal." It's basically government sanctioned grift. And it's generally more insulting to the other side than just torture. Torture is simple and archaic, and though it may now be more refined than in the past, it's still basically, "I want to you tell me something, so I'm going to hurt you until you do." Peaceful interrogation is basically having someone tell you everything you want to know with them thinking they actually wanted to tell you.
And given that it actually works, it at the very least should make torture less necessary, if not replace it entirely. The biggest trouble I see in it is that it can't just be done by anyone.

Another thing is that the people who have the information are probably prepared for torture. That's not to say they can completely resist it in all cases, it's just to say that it certainly reduces the effectiveness of torture techniques.

A lot of people just see it as unethical, though. They feel like the United States should represent some idea of civility and human rights in the world. They would say we, as Americans, should not treat prisoners in such a poor manor, and should treat them in a manner that is humane, in their minds. These people are idealists, and are generally fucking annoying.
I'm not into the whole holier-than-though bit, I just think that, with other methods available, torture should not be seen as a reasonable thing to do.

Of course, none of that matters whatsoever to politicians. This seems like further effort to humanize the Democratic party and make us all feel like they are the good guys so we don't notice or care when they take away OUR basic liberties and fuck us in the ass just as much as the Republican party.
It isn't about Truth or honesty; both sides rape us without even the courtesy of a reach-around, the only difference is which hat they are wearing while they do it.

I'll have to go on the side of torture.

Well don't get me wrong I think that other methods sould be used first, but if they fail and the information is important enough torture can and should be used. I've read a few things about torture and weather or not it works. I can't really say though if it dose or dosn't? Most books picked a side and just bashed the other side.

I supose that some people are unbreakable sure but some people can be broken. The thing I found most interesting on the topic was the use of payoffs and how effective they were. See dispicte all the talk terrorists are people too and hence greddy themselves. You flash the cash and they fall in line.

It all breaks down too torture works and if everything else fails then shouldn't we do all we can to protect our country.

You point out one instance in which you claim torture was effective, though you don't really specify what role torture played in that investigation. Perhaps you would like to provide more detailed evidence?


The idea that torture is not very effective comes from your own point: there will be people willing to do anything to stop the pain of torture. Unfortunately, this creates a problem. Torture victims are going to try and make something up even if they don't really know anything, or try to figure out what their captors want to hear and say that regardless of the truth. Thus, even if torture produces some accurate information, it is lumped in with large amounts of useless and inaccurate things that the interrogators were told simply to stop the pain.

There's not really a good solution for this. If we knew who knew what, then we wouldn't need to torture in the first place. But as it is, we don't and so we presumably need to try and torture all sorts of people in case they know something, producing a large volume of inaccurate results.

And of course, this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the Geneva convention and moral implications of torture.



The idea behind peaceful interrogation being more effective is that it produces a smaller volume of results, but you eliminate much of the inaccuracy that occur from tortured people just saying anything to stop the torture. People confuse volume of results with effectiveness. Just because some guy is screaming out names while we torture him doesn't necessarily mean we are getting anywhere. He may not even know anything, or simply be telling his captors what he thinks they want to hear and will be most likely to accept so that they will stop the torture. Peaceful interrogation produces higher quality information from suspects, even if the volume is less.



This is more true than portrayed in the US as well. It's not as easy to find fanatical religious jihadists willing to do anything to smite the infidels as shows like "24" make it seem. However, it isn't that hard to find people willing to blow themselves up in return for significant amounts of money being given to their family, or people willing to fight as foot soldiers for terrorist organizations for a good wage. HAMAS is well documented as employing these tactics. Once captured, these people don't have any special loyalty toward toward terrorist organizations, and very often can be bought off.

Now that you mention it I remember a couple of years ago on CNN when the "Human Rights First" was working with the military to raise awareness about the impact that "24" had left because they thought "24" was teaching US soldiers how to torture and it was becoming a problem.In my own opinion it was pointless to even argue about it because it was just a show I think the soldiers know the difference between a TV show and reality.

Seriously?
24 is filled with more techno-babel and bullshit than any other show I've seen that wasn't considered science fiction. Most of the things in that show, if extracted to the real world, make no sense and would get you laughed at by any professional in the field it applies to.
Although...pretty much anyone can get into the army. If you pass the physical exam and the ASVAB, you can get in. So a lot of idiots in the military.

This is going to be long. :shock:


The military does use peaceful interrogation. If it doesn't yield results, THEN they move to torture. So in other words, if the vicitim is being tortured, it's because the first peaceful attempt has failed. I'm sure there are occasions where they moved straight to torture, but it's to procure the information faster.

You say torture is archaic, which means it's a tactic used from long ago, and if we look at it today, why do most countries still use this method to get information if it doesn't yield results? It's a tried and true system (Of course as WhiteLion said the problem with it is misinformation but will touch on that later).

You said, "Torture is simple and archaic, and though it may now be more refined than in the past, it's still basically, 'I want to you tell me something, so I'm going to hurt you until you do.'" Torture is worse. For example waterboarding: It makes the victim think that he is drowing, and it hits him instinctually. So in other words, it's physical, but more psychological which is the reason why it's so effective. Most people can stand pain, but being at deaths door so many times, will unhinge someone 'til they break.


I agree with you. Torture isn't ethical, but necessary to save the lives of more people. Information is key to a successful war and succesful security. I also agree that people who say that are annoying as they do it purely because they think they're better than those that believe in torture. :roll:

Another thing that bothers me as well is these people are too blinded by their emotions that they fail to realise this tactic might have saved their lives and might save them in the future.

I also agree that the Decmocrats are using this opportunity to make themselves seem better than the Republicans (not that they can since both parties are equally twisted...) and it's quite frustrating to watch this power struggle within our government unrelated to our well being while we're going through an economical crisis...


In order for anyone to guess to know if torture actually works is to put themselves into that situation. I know I would be cracked quite easily. Even if I was trained to withstand it...


Yes, as you said, it should be used as a last resort, but if it works and all else fails use it to protect our country. The lives of many out weigh the lives of a few and the lives of a few aren't even killed. So why not use it?


They got the information from Binyam Mohamed. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benyam_Mohammed
Wikipedia isn't the best but I was to lazy to find the site I originally got this from.

The guy was about to blow up high rise apartments in the US with dirty bombs. Saved a lot of innocent civilians.


Fixed.(Bolded)

Now your exaggerating how many times inaccurate information is given. It happens but not as often as you make it sound.

Nevertheless, it does happen, but in my opinion it's still works since we still get information that can save lives. The payoff outweighs the cost in my opinion.


Not that I'm really for the eye-for-an-eye deal but the terrorists aren't going by the Geneva accord. We're at a severe disadvantage where they're bombing CIVILIANS, some can think otherwise and I won't think negetively towards you but I think in this case, it's a necessity.


As I mentioned earlier, you over exaggerate how much false information is given. The victim knows what's on the other end if he lies. Not only that, the reason why we interrogate multiple people is to stop misinformation and even without it, we can cross examine the intel to see if the information is of any use. So even if we do get information that isn't correct it's not that big of an issue. So as I said, the payoff outweighs the cost.

As I said in my earlier post, the torture tactics also serve as a warning to all who might join terrorist groups since it's voluntary. The reason why piratism died out during the victorian age is because the British would capture them and hang them near the sea for all to see. It struck fear into people and piratism began to die.

You now have a problematic contradiction. If torture is effective in getting anyone to say anything to stop the pain, then, to claim that the quality of information is high, one of the following would have to be true.

a) We already know who knows what we want to know and thus we know who to torture. Clearly this isn't true based on reports of how the torture has been carried out.

b) We torture a lot of people, but we only seriously investigate threats that we get info on from multiple sources. This doesn't make a lot of sense in the face of the justification of torture. We are willing to torture lots of people, but then we can't be bothered to even act on much of the info we get?

c) Every terrorist we capture knows something important, so all our torturing produces useful information. Clearly this is absurd. No one even attempts to claim that this is true. The whole premise for torturing is that they might know something, not that everyone has the blueprints for the master plan.



This shouldn't even need to be said, but part of the point of fighting terrorism that we act with a higher moral standard than the terrorists. How we fight terrorism matters. Torture is a part of this.



I'm very skeptical of this. Historically, violence hasn't really been particularly effective at ending the actions of violent resistance groups. Israel hasn't been very effective against Hezbollah and HAMAS, the British were never that effective against the IRA, and so on. In the case of the IRA, the conflict simmered down when the IRA as an organization became convinced that they could achieve their goals more effectively through peaceful negotiations, not when they were shot into submission. And of course, despite Israel's military power, HAMAS and Hezbollah have not gone away. In the case of Victorian pirates, I think a more probable theory is that the changing economy of the industrial revolution made it harder to pirate effectively from an economic standpoint.

This isn't to say that force isn't necessary or useful against terrorists, but it can only be one aspect of the solution, and by itself, will never solve the problem completely.

You forgot d):
The terrorist knows he's going to get it even worse if he gives false information.

Which brings me back to the fact that people generally don't give false information because of fear, which you seemed to have conviniently skipped over...

As for trying to obtain confirmation, all you have to do is keep the inmates seperate and just make sure that information from two of them match up. All it takes is two unlike b) option which you seemed to have exaggerated.

Seeing as how a) and c) are related:
No we don't know who knows the information and who don't, but they do know information on who else is in the terrorist organization and they can give names. Investigating those people might yield another upturning of a terrorist plot which could save lives... even yours.

Think about this, what if you were those people that lived in the apartment building that was going to get blown up by Mohammad (In the article I linked to in my previous post). Would you think differently? Your life got saved from torture of one person. If you had a family, then their lives have been saved as well. Not only that, your neighbors, and your neighbor's neighbors AND their family. No lives were lost because of interrogation.

What if we had interrogated a few people before 9/11? What if we used the same methods to stop it? If we have the power to stop something like that from happening, wouldn't you use it, if it meant no lives being lost?

The payoff outweighs the cost.


I thought the real reason for fighting terrorist was to protect our civilians... difference of opinions I guess...

EDIT: Also, there have been many exceptions to rules where they were bent to accomodate a dire situation. Why not for this one where we save hundreds if not thousands of lives? Human lives are more important than the issue of morality.


When the Israelies didn't counter the bombings from Hamas, even though they had a truce, Hamas kept on bombing them. Now that Israel has beat the shit out of them, they've stopped. At least they've stopped longer than they have compared to how long they stopped for peaceful negotiations.

The problem isn't people intentionally lying because they know something and refuse to tell us. The problem is that we are torturing a good number of people who don't actually know anything, and so to stop the pain, they will say something, generally what they think their captors want to hear. This creates inaccurate information.

Which brings us back to the other point. We are willing to torture to get information, but we're only willing to use the information if two inmates confirm the same thing? If we are going with "save civilians at all costs," then not investigating information gleaned from terrorism, even if it is only put forth by one terrorist, is clearly unacceptable.

The point isn't that you need 15 people to collaborate, it's that if you're going to justify torture and then not follow leads from information only put forth by one torture victim(which has a chance of being true), that is not acceptable. Is expenditure of manpower and resources less than the cost of engaging in morally ambiguous behavior which has an impact of the way people view the US and its values? The whole point of torture is that we are willing to go to great lengths to get any info which might stop a plot. Thus, if we follow this philosophy, there is no way to get around the high volume of inaccurate information.



For 9/11, lack of information wasn't the problem, in retrospect. It was that the information wasn't with the right people in time. Would torture have helped pre-9/11? Perhaps it would have had some marginal benefit, but we weren't yet "at war" with terrorism. It would have been even more of a diplomatic issue then it is today, and we would have had the same problem of having to sort through inaccurate information. On top of this, would we even have managed to torture the right people? Would we have been willing to grab someone we suspected of a plot, not even an enemy combatant who actually fought our forces on the battlefield, and simply torture them on suspicion of a terrorist plot? If we look at the situation, torture would have been far more objectionable and far less helpful in the case of 9/11 than most people seem to think.

Another overlooked aspect: we don't live in "24" where Jack Bauer tortures the bad guys and saves the world from nuclear holocaust. There are peaceful interrogation techniques that have been successful. How many people do we have to torture to save one life? Is it worth it no matter how many it is? Every person we torture isn't saving thousands of lives. In fact, most probably help us minimally or not at all.



We could defend our civilians by walking through the cities in Iraq and killing everyone, presumably we would take out the terrorists disguised as civilians. However, we don't do this, even though it would probably save the lives of some of our people. Clearly, our moral standing in how we fight terrorism matters. We want to protect our civilians, but if we were to use the same tactics as the terrorists we fight, then the only justification for our "War on terror" is "better them than us."



That's because neither side has been willing to make any meaningful concessions in the negotiations. I highly doubt that Israel has solved the problem. Palestinian paramilitaries are still acting violently on the West Bank.

We can't solve terrorism by simply killing enough people. We've tried and failed. Now the people in charge of policy realize that the point of force is to prevent as much violence as possible while attacking the economic and cultural incentives that people have to become terrorists. If the Iraq economy provides decently paying jobs, it's harder for Al-Qaeda to find people willing to go into terrorism. If Israel destroys schools and hospitals in Palestine, the civilians hate Israel more and are more willing to support groups like HAMAS, especially as HAMAS spends a significant amount of effort on humanitarian work in Palestine. There's a reason they managed to get elected.

I just want to give some information about that book I mentioned. It wasn't "one guy writing a book without hard evidence."

The book is called How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. It was written by a man calling himself Matthew Alexander, which is a pseudonym (I assume to protect his identity or keep people from digging too deep into his work with the military). Here is a link that talks about him and the book: Ex-Interrogator: Torture Doesn't Work

From the article:

So, Alexander not only knows what he's talking about, since he's done a lot of interrogations and overseen even more, but he's produced results, even being able to capture a very dangerous man, using peaceful interrogation. I'd say it's worth listening to him.

I saw him on the Daily Show, and on the show, he explained that torturing actually makes it harder for American soldiers, because Al-Qaeda can use our torturing as another example of why America is wrong and recruit more soldiers. It just gives them another reason to hate us, and while there may be a thousand reasons to hate us, it is very easy and very powerful to say, "America will beat people and almost kill them so that they can learn the locations of more people, so they can beat them and almost kill them." And when a citizen hears that, he will be more likely to join than if he just hears, "They are a different religion than us."

Honestly, I think interrogation should be treated in same way anything else should be, as an art form. There are people who can keep their mouth shut even if you slide a glass rod into their dick and smash it with a hammer, then there are people who will break under the mere thought of being handcuffed.

People react differently and that needs to be the one focus of interrogation. Forget all this humanitarian bullshit. If you get an award for saving people, what the fuck does that mean anyway? Interrogation is about results, not method. Some people need to be "buttered up" and others need to have the shit beaten out of them. The only way to differentiate between the two is to know who you are interrogating.

It isn't a matter of whether we should be torturing people or using passive interrogation methods. Its about knowing. That's it. If you know your enemy, you know what they will do, what they're willing to endure, and what you need to make them talk. I think people should be treated with as much respect as possible, but if they're inviting you to shit on them, its disrespectful not to do so.

I do agree that some terrorist might not know anything that's life threatening, but all terrorists know names. Names can lead us to more names and terrorists. We can follow the trail while uncovering more terrorist plots. And again, they don't give out false information as often as you say.


I never said we have to. There are always other ways of checking information other than to go by the words of two people. We have intellingence outside who can check to see if the information is correct. This might bring on the argument, "Well, if we have intelligence outside of torture, why not use it?" The reason is, intelligence need a starting point and need a hint on where to look. For them, uncovering a plot is like trying to find a needle in maybe millions of haystacks. A terrorist might be helpful enough to point us to at least the right haystack.

Not only that, if they're able to extract information from one terrorist, interrogation on other terrorist get easier as all they need to do is use it as bait to tell the other terrorists that they already know the info and all they need is a confirmation.


You completely missed my point. 15 people tortured and even if we get just ONE good information, it's good. Example, again the Mohammad case. He was going to blow up high-rise apartment buildings. We can safely assume that in New York a high-rise apartment can house over a hundred people. We can also assume he would have done so to multiple buildings. So you're saying the lives of over at least 200 innocents are not worth 15 who are out to kill you? It's like saying you're okay with 9/11 and the thousands of victims that died if it meant saving the sanity of 20 people. Seriously... whose got the morality issue?


If we were at war and we did have detainees that knew of the 9/11 plot, what then? I think if there was even a CHANCE to stop it I would have used it.

Also, I don't recall ever mentioning that we should just grab anyone to torture out of suspicion, and to this date, I don't think the US has done so without proper evidence.


Where'd 24 come from...? I don't even watch that show. It's not reality so I don't think we can really pull evidence from a show. >_>

Also, we're not talking about one life. We're talking hundreds if not thousands. Your willing to sacrifice those amounts for their sanity? We're not taking lives. Not only that, these men are convicted of plotting to kill thousands of innocents. Why protect a few of them over many innocents?


Again, exaggeration. If we did what you said, we would be killing innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the war, and as I said the main reason is to save civilians which we're seemingly upholding.


But did it stop the missiles coming in killing innocents? Yes, yes it did. Why'd they do it?

They understood that the payoff outweighs the cost.


I never said anything about killing people... I used Hamas and Israel as an analogy of the stopping power of fear. >_>

---

He may know what he's talking about, but that's a one person perspective. Guantanamo Bay has shown results from torture. I believe they released up to 3 cases where torture yielded results to save lives.

One, is the one I mentioned about Mohammad who was going to blow up high-rise apartments on a block.

The other two I couldn't find sources for (since guantanamo bay torture result searches usually result in finding people talking how bad it is...), but I'm pretty sure other's here have heard of these at least once.

The trucks that were crossing the Mexican border with loaded explosives headed for LA, and another incident was a group that were going to fly an airplane into a library also in LA. Thinking on this reasonably, you have to wonder how many more they haven't mentioned that saved many American lives for just a discomfort of few men.

Also, you seem to neglect what I've written in my previous posts. The fact that they DO use peaceful interrogation techniques BEFORE moving on to torture. The reason they move on is because peaceful interrogations didn't work. Also, if torture was not successful, history would not have used it. Seeing as how long it's lived and you believe it doesn't work, and you don't question why we keep using it, then there's a logic screw up somewhere... You may say it's for revenge, but many would love nothing more than to kill than to torture.

As for talking about how Al Queda use American torture as a rallying cry, I think there's a higher chance that they'd be afraid more than try and rally around it. If they're going to join, they're going to join for other reasons not just because we employ the same tactics they use on POWs. You may think they lack common sense, but they don't. They know they do the same things to POWs so I doubt it's a good reason for them to join terrorist groups for that reason.

One thing that stood out in the article you linked was this:


People are funny since a few years after the accident, they were willing to let the torture happen, but now that things have settled and 'cause the media says "it's bad", people are suddenly grow a conscience and complain about it.

If another incident were to happen we'd be having complaints from those same people who will say, "Why didn't you do anything to stop it?" and will suddenly have a change of heart. :?

---

Before counter arguing my points, I want you guys to answer one question. No ifs, no buts, and no because. Just a simple yes or no:

If we're to go by the example given, that torture has yielded at least one result good of finding out about the Dirty Bombs that Mohammad would have carried out (not even going to talk about the other accounts of it being succesful and saving more lives) from just torturing 15 people to save the lives of over 200, would you want to continue it to save perhaps more American lives in trading the sanity (not killing) of maybe just 20 people who are prisoners because they were plotting to kill thousands?

I respond with a question: If a situation exists where a person says (in his blog, perhaps) that he is going to kill a lot of people, and a person who reads his blog goes and kills him, thus ensuring that only one person is killed, is that okay? And should we believe that it is okay to kill anybody who says that they are going to kill?

That is a completely different situation than what you mention, but the core ideas of the two are the same, that we can, and perhaps should, use the immediate results of one situation, and nothing but the immediate results, to decide how we should act in the future. It is also saying that the ends justify the means, and while I do agree that often, if faced with the choice, one life should be ended rather than a hundred lives, when we say that the ends justify the means, we can get into big trouble. Morals and ethics go out the window when the ends justify the means, and if we lose our morality, then we may as well have lost our lives. That's why we haven't relentlessly dropped bombs on every square inch of the Middle East. If we can say that it's okay to torture any enemy soldier we capture, then what stops us from saying that it's okay to bomb a village of citizens if we think some enemy soldiers are hiding out there?



You'll have to excuse me; I haven't read every bit of every post. I really just wanted to say that about the book, to clear up some things about it.

Anyways, you say that peaceful interrogation is used before moving on to torture, but is there any proof of that? Or is it a happy thought that you'd like to think? Is it not possible that the people who fail to get results using peaceful interrogation and then move on to torture don't try hard enough to get results without sticking the enemy's head into a bucket of water? I'm not saying that's what happens, but it is possible.



"Torture has been around a long time, so it works." That is a piss-poor excuse. A lot of things have been around for a very long time. Capital punishment has been around forever, and it's still around today, but there's a lot less of it, and that's a good thing. (Even if one is for capital punishment, we should at least be glad that a person isn't hanged a day after being accused of murder.) Racism and sexism have been around for a long time, too. Monarchies were the real big thing, too, before they went out of style. But they lasted for a very long time. It doesn't mean that they were the right way to do things. It may be that in a hundred years, people look back on the present and think, "It's unbelievable that they would do something as inhumane as torture."

I've often asked myself, "Why do we keep using torture?" And I've come to several answers. The one that sticks out in my mind the most is - because it's easy. When an enemy is captured, it's easy to want to beat the shit out of him. When a prisoner says that he wants to kill you, it's easy to want to hurt him. When information that the man has is needed, it's easy to say that he should be tortured. And it's easy to say that torture works. What isn't easy is putting aside that the person you have in your custody was shooting at you moments ago; it's also not easy to admit that you were shooting at him, too. It's not easy to put away the anger and try something that doesn't involve letting out your aggressions. It's not easy to try something that's more reliable but may seem humiliating and unpatriotic. I imagine a lot of people who are against peaceful interrogation simply don't like the idea of our soldiers being buddy-buddy with enemy soldiers. But it's all about saving more lives, isn't it?

If peaceful interrogation of a captive does not work, after it has actually been done the right way, then should torture be used? I'm not sure. It seems to me that torture may still not get the person to divulge the right information. I think that the person might yell random shit just to get the torture to stop for a little bit. And I think if America condones the use of torture, even if peaceful interrogation does not work in a situation, then that's telling the rest of the world that it's okay. And when that happens, our soldiers might be tortured, and if they are, we can't say anything, because we sent the message that torture was acceptable.

So I started replying to your posts and 30 minutes and I'm done. Fakku timer says 1:45 minutes 'til the apocalypse. I post. Fakku was already down. I lost 30 minutes of writing... Now, after 7 days I don't think I have the will to refute your arguments. ~_~