NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html

n Iraqi customs agent secretly working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror cell spilled the beans on the group after he was arrested, Jordanian officials tell ABC News.

Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly was arrested by Jordanian intelligence forces last spring.

Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses.

Karbouly also admitted to his role in the kidnappings of two Moroccan embassy employees, four Iraqi National Guards and an Iraqi finance ministry official.

In a videotaped confession, Karbouly said he acted on direct orders from Zarqawi.

Officials say he will not be eligible for any of the $25 million reward money.

Hmm. No reward money. Could that be because they forced the information out of him? Isn't Jordan one of those "rendition" states?

If it was torture, does this prove that torture can work?

Torture works, it is weather it is ethical which is the question.

Depends on what you're asking, who you're asking, and what you want to hear, I'd say.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html

Another fascinating article on the subject.
Torture apologists point to one powerful example to counter all the arguments against torture: the Battle of Algiers. In 1956, the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) began a terrorist bombing campaign in Algiers, the capital of Algeria, killing many innocent civilians. In 1957, Gen. Jacques Massu and the French government began a counterinsurgency campaign in Algiers using torture. As English military theorist Brian Crozier put it, "By such ruthless methods, Massu smashed the FLN organization in Algiers and re-established unchallenged French authority. And he did the job in seven months -- from March to mid-October."

It is hard to argue with success. Here were professional torturers who produced consistently reliable information in a short time. It was a breathtaking military victory against terrorism by a democracy that used torture. Yet the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture. As noted war historian John Keegan said in his recent study of military intelligence ("Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy From Napoleon to Al-Qaeda"), "it is force, not fraud or forethought, that counts" in modern wars.

BTW, the article here quotes John Keegan, who I have quoted before, and who Muravyets dismisses entirely as a source, so take the Salon article as you will.

Whether torture works or not depends on what you want it to achieve, no? Though I suppose it does. Too much physical and psychological pain and everyone cracks.

Torture works, it is weather it is ethical which is the question.
I don't think that everyone agrees that it works in the first place.

Can torture work? Perhaps it can..
Would it work on me? Definately not. I'd tell anything to make it stop.

Torture works if the person knows something. If it didn't work no one would use it. You can also get confessions out of innocent men. It's extremely unethical, but yes it works. If you're willing to take the low road.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html



Hmm. No reward money. Could that be because they forced the information out of him? Isn't Jordan one of those "rendition" states?

If it was torture, does this prove that torture can work?

I'm not sure, if for no other reason than because it doesn't necessarily prove that torture was used. They may have soft-pedaled him with a good cop, bad cop routine and told him that he would evade torture by confessing and providing details.

That being said, if it was torture, one case proves very little at all; instead, you need to look at the comparative effectiveness of several techniques over time. If you do that, I think you'd probably see that torture is dramatically less effective a means of getting honest and accurate intelligence data than other interrogation techniques. You ruin the possibility that the subject will trust and confide in you, you increase the likelihood that false or misleading information will be given, and you destroy your national credibility for being a defender of human rights in the process. All in all, it's not completely impossible that you'd get effective intel, but it's not as likely, and the tradeoff is obsenely bad.

Or is this a more effective tactic?

And the French had an awesomely efficient informant system of their own. Massu took a census in the casbah and issued identity cards for the entire population. He ordered soldiers to paint numbers on each block of the casbah, and each block had a warden -- usually a trustworthy Algerian -- who reported all suspicious activities. Every morning, hooded informants controlled the exits to identify any suspects as they tried to leave. The FLN helped the French by calling a general strike, which revealed all its sympathizers. What made the difference for the French in Algiers was not torture, but the accurate intelligence obtained through public cooperation and informants.

Maybe we should do this in Iraq - that sounds pretty smart to me.

So, DK, you are saying..? Detainees/prisoners should always be tortured? Some should be tortured? People should just arbitrarely be tortured? What?

I guess it's a good thing Mr. Zarqawi is dead. Is it a good thing people were tortured to get him killed? ...not so sure.

Do you not feel that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

Torture works as well as genocide. In other words, it does, but is morally abhorant to any decent person.

Do you not feel that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
I'm guessing this question is directed to 'my kind'...

Yeah, I guess sometimes it is. Determinig if the situation is right must be bitch though...

I'm guessing this question is directed to 'my kind'...

Yeah, I guess sometimes it is. Determinig if the situation is right must be bitch though...

Your kind? Just wondering, what do you mean?

It sure as hell turns me on!.. so yes. *cough*

Ruffy the S&M enthusiast?

Wow, learn somethin new every day!

To be honest, no, it doesn't. Because the testimonies achieved can be pretty much bullshit.

If someone was torturing me I would tell them whatever they wanted to know to get them to stop, whether I was lying or not. How can that be reliable?

Ruffy the S&M enthusiast?

Wow, learn somethin new every day!
;)

To be honest, no, it doesn't. Because the testimonies achieved can be pretty much bullshit.

If someone was torturing me I would tell them whatever they wanted to know to get them to stop, whether I was lying or not. How can that be reliable?

Because if you lie that results in more torture, giving you incentive to tell the truth.

It doesnt nessicarily work all the time, effectivley, becuase the person being tortured will do or say ANYTHING to stop the pain. and polygraphs aren't exactly reliable.

Your kind? Just wondering, what do you mean?
People who don't (usually, in my case) approve torture.

You know, them libruls.

Course you DO have to remmember, there are people who like being tortured.....in all possible ways.....

People who don't (usually, in my case) approve torture.

You know, them libruls.

Ok, i just don't want you to think im some sort of wacky conservative who dissaproves of liberals etc..

Course you DO have to remmember, there are people who like being tortured.....in all possible ways.....

Yes and we know him as Ruffy!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11126151&postcount=16

Aren't truth serums, sodium pentathol? and such stuff supposed to be more effective in getting info?

IIRC, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sang like a canary with the use of such chemicals.

Because if you lie that results in more torture, giving you incentive to tell the truth.

One, how do they know whether or not you're lying? Two, what if they don't accept the truth or the fact that you don't know anything?

Sometimes people have answers that they want, and that's all they care to hear.

"I'm not a witch!" (thumbs screws twist in) "I-I'm NOT a witch!" (twist in deeper) "Augh! I'm sorry! I'm a witch, I'm a witch!"

I guess it works. Everybody will confess at some point when subjected to extreme pain. Question is: is the intelligence gained via torture credible?

Another question is this: can the West, which claims to have the moral upper hand, use such methods without damaging whatever credibility it might have left…?

Killing every black and poor baby in america would reduce crime significantly in the long-term.

Torture can sometimes get information from people that might otherwise be impossible to get.

Utility isnt the issue, the ethics of it are.

No decent person approves of torture.

I think a better way would be bribe them with liqour and sex, or MORE torture if they like it....:)

Ok, i just don't want you to think im some sort of wacky conservative who dissaproves of liberals etc..
Not at all, don't worry.

It's just what I read in in the OP: "See, you pansies; torture works just fine. So there!"

One, how do they know whether or not you're lying?


You can check to see if they are lying by going to/trying/spying on whatever they say.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html



Hmm. No reward money. Could that be because they forced the information out of him? Isn't Jordan one of those "rendition" states?

If it was torture, does this prove that torture can work?

If, by the question, you mean: "With a reasonable knowledge of anatomy, and a few items from RadioShack, a moderately skilled individual could make you admit you paid Santa Claus $500 for the pleasure of a reacharound"... then, yes, torture 'works'.

Since it is fairly likely that anyone will admit ANYTHING to stop torture, however, it isn't much of an information source in terms of reliability or value.

It works in so far as you get whatever answers you actually want. You're not going to get real, honest answers, what the torturee will give is what the torturer wants to hear.

So basically it doesn't work. At all.

You can check to see if they are lying by going to/trying/spying on whatever they say.

And what if the information that the person gave was correct when they heard it, but had since become incorrect because plans were changed to factor in that this person had been captured and may spill information? Then you could torture on all you want and not get anything useful.

Torture generally works. It's just a matter of morals.

Aren't truth serums, sodium pentathol? and such stuff supposed to be more effective in getting info?

IIRC, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sang like a canary with the use of such chemicals.

That was a combination of methamphetamine and Versed (strong stimulant that makes it difficult to stop talking in general, and a drug that temporarily blows away your short term memory so you can't remember anything long enough to compose a lie or remember what lies you just told).

And what if the information that the person gave was correct when they heard it, but had since become incorrect because plans were changed to factor in that this person had been captured and may spill information? Then you could torture on all you want and not get anything useful.

You probably wouldn't torture in that situation if the information can be so easily changed. Note: i think you should only use torture as a last resort if lives are at stake.

That was a combination of methamphetamine and Versed (strong stimulant that makes it difficult to stop talking in general, and a drug that temporarily blows away your short term memory so you can't remember anything long enough to compose a lie or remember what lies you just told).


I've had versed before a procedure and have absolutely zero recollection of anything from the moment they told me it was being added to the IV until several hours later. I was conscious,relaxed and cooperative-thats why they used it. I still had my sense of humor. I could walk, talk and eat lunch.

But several hours later, I was completely bewildered and the next day, I was aware I had lost hours. Still gives me the creeps.


It makes sense they would use this for any type of interrogation. I think you may lose any inhibitions to reveal things, as opposed to pain ,where you may spit out anything you thought the questioner was looking for-accurate or not, to stop the pain.

I've had versed before a procedure and have absolutely zero recollection of anything from the moment they told me it was being added to the IV until several hours later. I was conscious,relaxed and cooperative-thats why they used it. I still had my sense of humor. I could walk, talk and eat lunch.

But several hours later, I was completely bewildered and the next day, I was aware I had lost hours. Still gives me the creeps.


It makes sense they would use this for any type of interrogation. I think you may lose any inhibitions to reveal things, as opposed to pain ,where you may spit out anything you thought the questioner was looking for-accurate or not, to stop the pain.

Its original use was to make it possible for women to experience childbirth, and not use any anesthetics, but women soon thought the idea of not remembering that they had the baby was a really bad thing.

It's still used commonly in the US prior to surgical procedures (since who would want to remember that!), and the universal thing you'll notice about people on Versed:

1. They think you're their best friend in the world.
2. Life is great!
3. What else would you like me to talk about?

The best part is that if you're actually trying to lie, they can put you under the next day, and ask you the very same questions in the same order. If anything is different, they'll know it. And, of course, you have no recollection of ever having been questioned.

Post op nurses hear the most fascinating conversations!

Post op nurses hear the most fascinating conversations!


On a side note, being a post op nurse must be a wonderful job.

You deal with people who are always happy, because A) they came to... ALIVE! and fixed by surgery B) They are high on opiates C) you can give them *more* opiates.


Back on topic:

Things like truth serum are yet another reason that torture is never acceptable under any circumstances. Injuring a helpless prisoner, causing injury to a defenseless person is not only ethically reprehenisble but it requires deep personal cowardice and dishonor.

1) IF torture was involved

2) IF the information he gave was correct.

http://www.untitledstates.com/webimages/noparking--no!+No!+No,+no,+no-no-no,+no,+no-no!+No,+no-no!+.png

One, how do they know whether or not you're lying? Two, what if they don't accept the truth or the fact that you don't know anything?

Sometimes people have answers that they want, and that's all they care to hear.

"I'm not a witch!" (thumbs screws twist in) "I-I'm NOT a witch!" (twist in deeper) "Augh! I'm sorry! I'm a witch, I'm a witch!"

I was going to say precisely the same thing. Regular folks confessed to flying through the air, dancing with Satan, changing into animals, and so on.

On the idea of morality: it's one of the harder questions. I spose you have to look at what the alternatives are, and what the possible results of not torturing would be.

I'm also curious if we can prove that "truth serums" are as effective as stated. It seems scientifically possible, (chatty drunks are likely another example of the same phenomenon) but if it's as incredible as claimed, why do spies and police forces have to work so hard?

If torture didn't work, we wouldn't use it...

just sayin...

If torture didn't work, we wouldn't use it...

just sayin...
I disagree. People-especially people in espionage-are capable of vindictiveness, cruelty, and simple detachment from reality. Just because something is immoral or irrational doesn't mean people won't try it. Constantly.

If torture didn't work, we wouldn't use it...

just sayin...


This isnt exactly the "Competence in Government" administration we're dealing with you know.

"what works" seems to be about 10th on the list of bush gov't priorities, sadly.

Torture does work. Anyone will admit anything under torture, but a skilled torturer will be able to tell the fake confessions from the real ones. It depends on the skill of your agents and the conditions of your victim

Torture does work. Anyone will admit anything under torture, but a skilled torturer will be able to tell the fake confessions from the real ones. It depends on the skill of your agents and the conditions of your victimAnd on the skill of the victim. People can be trained in how to handle tortue (the training normally involves torture itself). I can't tell you any of the training, because, unsurprisingly, such training is kept top secret. Thought I can imagine that it could include giving a tiny part of the truth with your first answer before torture, any subsequent answers that were similiar would be considered lies and result in torture, which in turn would associate the truth with pain, thus making the torture ineffective.

I think the one thing I can remember about torture technique is that you never let the tortured know any of suspicions as this compromises future answers. That is, if you think that person A could be hiding in Town B you never ask if Person A is hiding in Town B. Instead you ask where person A is hiding.

However torture is not reliable. Sometime it gets the right answer, sometimes it doesn't. What it can do is give an indication.

Hmm. No reward money. Could that be because they forced the information out of him? Isn't Jordan one of those "rendition" states?

If it was torture, does this prove that torture can work?
Well, let's see what John McCain, prob the most famous tortured American, has to say about it:
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.
source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/)
That's a man speaking from personal experience. Are you going to argue with him?

Having read those bits about Algeria above... France lost in Algeria and torture proved to every Algerian that the colonial occupation was just as bad as the FLN said it was. The FLN was in any case rather a lot more than just a goup of "terrorists", we would these days consider them "freedom fighters" against a colonial power that would not question itself. Although of course the torturing French officials called them that. Hm. The pattern is hardly new.

On torture generally, but drawing on the Algerian experience, read up on psychologist Fanon about what torture does to destroy the psyche of both the victim and the perpetrator. Read up on French history to find out how the same French military hardliners who used torture in Algeria were also willing to overthrow their own democratic government.

Is this really the kind of example anyone is looking for?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html



Hmm. No reward money. Could that be because they forced the information out of him? Isn't Jordan one of those "rendition" states?

If it was torture, does this prove that torture can work?


Torture works.
Sometimes.
And there's the rub - you get too much bollocks 'information'.
qv: witch-hunts. You end up with people confessing to crimes that never happened at all.

Ethical problem?
Not really - I don't care how much suffering, pain etc is inflicted on our enemies.

Practical problem? You bet!

whether or not it works, it is unethical and should not be allowed under any circumstances.

With a skilled interrogator torture pushes 80% efficiency when it comes to getting the truth. This value is quite similar to what one gets from polygraph, voice stress, and truth serum investigations. The core component of all of these methods really isn't the tool, so much as it is the interrogator's ability to discern falsehoods.

I seem to recall a study of discerning falsehoods where the retired cops they tested could accurately gauge falsehoods approaching 80% of the time, so its not unreasonable to believe the above efficiency rating for torture.



And to those of you who say torture wouldn't work on you because "you would say anything to stop being tortured:" obviously you haven't been tortured before. Most people who resort to torture already have a pretty good idea of what the truth is, so you won't be able to just make up stuff and have them believe it. Beyond this most torture used for interrogation places the subject in constant or nearly constant fatigue, stress, or pain in which case its much easier to spot a lie. Concocting a lie takes much more thought than telling the truth, and so the concerted effort necessary to tell a lie often is belayed by one's delayed answers or strained speech. Another problem is that if asked for verification lies will almost invariably differ since your short term memory will be loaded with pain and thus prevent answers given from entering long term memory. Over the course of many days you will eventually be found out, and no one who resorts to torture has anything but time (afterall the victim is detained in some way).


And POW training is not kept all that top secret. You can learn a fair amount about it from the Learning Channel. One of the most effective interrogation methods in use today is denying subjects proper nutrition. Hence POW training includes being forced to live without good nutrition for extended periods of time. Other aspects of POW training can include sensory deprivation (being locked into a dark, quiet, smell-less room for weeks), sensory overload (bright lights, discordant sounds, and harsh smells), and exposure to harsh living conditions (extremes of cold, heat, insect bites, etc).

But it does its job at help making soldiers resistant to interrogation, so it is done.

NT

With a skilled interrogator torture pushes 80% efficiency when it comes to getting the truth. This value is quite similar to what one gets from polygraph, voice stress, and truth serum investigations. The core component of all of these methods really isn't the tool, so much as it is the interrogator's ability to discern falsehoods.

I seem to recall a study of discerning falsehoods where the retired cops they tested could accurately gauge falsehoods approaching 80% of the time, so its not unreasonable to believe the above efficiency rating for torture.



And to those of you who say torture wouldn't work on you because "you would say anything to stop being tortured:" obviously you haven't been tortured before. Most people who resort to torture already have a pretty good idea of what the truth is, so you won't be able to just make up stuff and have them believe it. Beyond this most torture used for interrogation places the subject in constant or nearly constant fatigue, stress, or pain in which case its much easier to spot a lie. Concocting a lie takes much more thought than telling the truth, and so the concerted effort necessary to tell a lie often is belayed by one's delayed answers or strained speech. Another problem is that if asked for verification lies will almost invariably differ since your short term memory will be loaded with pain and thus prevent answers given from entering long term memory. Over the course of many days you will eventually be found out, and no one who resorts to torture has anything but time (afterall the victim is detained in some way).


And POW training is not kept all that top secret. You can learn a fair amount about it from the Learning Channel. One of the most effective interrogation methods in use today is denying subjects proper nutrition. Hence POW training includes being forced to live without good nutrition for extended periods of time. Other aspects of POW training can include sensory deprivation (being locked into a dark, quiet, smell-less room for weeks), sensory overload (bright lights, discordant sounds, and harsh smells), and exposure to harsh living conditions (extremes of cold, heat, insect bites, etc).

But it does its job at help making soldiers resistant to interrogation, so it is done.

NTThat's not quite what I was thinking of. I was thinking of high level torture training. I think it's been suggested that such training includes: 'Doublethink' methods of creating a duality of truths in your mind before the torture begins, being able to fake physical signals that you are lying (so that you can make a partial truth sound like a falsehood); and methods to keep track of time, so that time dependent infomation can be withheld until it is no longer of use. So much more than simple sensory deprivation.

Hence instead of the torturer just having to discern between the truth and falsehoods he has to discern between, falsehoods that are intended to sound false, falsehoods that are intended to sound true, truths that are intended to sound false and truths that are intended to sound true. This can develop into ever more complex psychological games between the torturer and the tortured. The torturer attempting to figure out if the truth is being told or not, and tortured attempting to figure out if the torturer believes him or not - each attempting to use bluffs and doublebluffs and so forth.

toture work? just depends on what you want... breaking a target can be good, trusting what he babbles out under torment as true and useful information is another can of worms...

Torture works, it is weather it is ethical which is the question.

Yes. Torture works. In virtually one hundred percent of all cases of torture the victim feels excrutiating pain.

The information that it gets however, tends to be very unreliable. People lie and stall for time. In virtually any organized terrorist/liberation movement people will be trained to resist torture, and the rest of the organization knows that if someone is captured then all of their information must be made obsolete. People must move, codes must be changed, etc. Even if the prisoner is released, he would have a hard time getting back in touch with his old commrades.

This much is historicly verified fact. The particular you cite is hypothetical. It's like asking "there's always a blind spot on the other side of the sun from us, so might that be where God lives?"

But you will concede, methinks, that torture can be deployed quite succesfully as a means to break the spirit of a body whose spirit causes you trouble.

If we torture, than how are we any better than them? :confused: I mean, seriously, who wants to become as evil and hateful a person as the terrorists in the process of trying to defeat them. We only defeat ourselves, it seems.

I have thought about how suseptible I would be to torture. Having no idea, truthfully, I can only suppose. I would be under the impression that whether I told the truth or not, I would 1) not be believed, 2) be killed eventually, and that 3) I just had to figure out what they wanted to hear and feed them some bullshit story that fit that so they would kill me off sooner and thus spare me more pain, therefore why endanger others by ratting them out?

My inclination is that torture does not work, but rather gives a great deal of sadistic satisfaction to the torturer, who might otherwise be out screwing up legitimate operations with his bloodthirst.

I think that if you look at folks who have been kidnapped and held for long periods of time under more decent conditions, the human responce is to begin to identify with the kidnapper and become voluntarity more cooperative in hopes of gaining more personal freedom. Why the military does not apply this tactic is beyond me.

That was a combination of methamphetamine and Versed (strong stimulant that makes it difficult to stop talking in general, and a drug that temporarily blows away your short term memory so you can't remember anything long enough to compose a lie or remember what lies you just told).

OK. I will take that over the thumbscrews. :p

OK. I will take that over the thumbscrews. :p

Some people define that as torture as well. What do you define as torture?

The old medieval, physical pain methods? Sleep deprivation? Loud noises for long periods of time? Isolation?

If torture didn't work, we wouldn't use it...

just sayin...

The fact that it doesn't worked hasn't stopped thousands of men from using penis enlargers...

Some people define that as torture as well. What do you define as torture?

The old medieval, physical pain methods? Sleep deprivation? Loud noises for long periods of time? Isolation?

Pain is an old companion of mine. Childbirth was the worst, gotta tell ya, and had me begging for mercy. Then refusing gallbladder surgery for years was pretty fucking crazy. But I also have rheumatoid arthritus and have had nearly constant neuralgia most of my adult life, a result I contribute to an intense period of drug use in my teens. ( I think I fried my wiring).

Anyway, I avoid pain, but have also learned to deal with it. For me, torture would be having to watch my kids experience pain. I would sacrifice everything personally to save my kids. Just thinking about it stresses me to tears.

The fact that it doesn't worked hasn't stopped thousands of men from using penis enlargers...

They don't work ?..:eek:

Red is positive and black is negative.

As a few people have said, torture will make a person say whatever the torturer wants to hear to make the pain stop. But this has much more profound consequences - it corrupts the information supply. I would be willing to bet that torture led to the "intelligence" that Iraq has WMDs. We know that the administration wanted a reason to go to war - the torturer would be asking very leading questions. That led to the deaths of far too many people. Nothing but pain comes out of a torture session, for all parties involved. It is completely apprehensible and needs to be stopped

As a few people have said, torture will make a person say whatever the torturer wants to hear to make the pain stop. But this has much more profound consequences - it corrupts the information supply. I would be willing to bet that torture led to the "intelligence" that Iraq has WMDs. We know that the administration wanted a reason to go to war - the torturer would be asking very leading questions. That led to the deaths of far too many people. Nothing but pain comes out of a torture session, for all parties involved. It is completely REPREHENSIBLE and needs to be stopped
And yes, you are completely right.

Some people define that as torture as well. What do you define as torture?

The old medieval, physical pain methods? Sleep deprivation? Loud noises for long periods of time? Isolation?


Mainly causing injury to a defenseless and helpless prisoner.

Loud noises might count, i'm up in the air about sleep deprivation and isolation.

It is the fact that in order to torture someone, you have to abandon any sense of honor, courage, personal dignitity of decency and reduce yourself to a wife or child beater is what makes every person who commits torture a criminal and scum.

Some people define that as torture as well. What do you define as torture?

The old medieval, physical pain methods? Sleep deprivation? Loud noises for long periods of time? Isolation?
Being trapped in a stuck elevator with you. :)

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html

Another fascinating article on the subject.

BTW, the article here quotes John Keegan, who I have quoted before, and who Muravyets dismisses entirely as a source, so take the Salon article as you will.
The French are always wrong in military matters.

[/obvious]

What's wrong with john keegan?

Red is positive and black is negative.

The LORD is my light and my salvation; I will fear no one. The LORD protects me from all danger; I will never be afraid.-Ps 27:1
Interesting point raised by your signature. These Muslim extremists have similar beliefs about Allah as you do about the Lord. Will torture work against those who fervently believe that Allah protects them from all pain?

Originally Posted by Deep Kimchi
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/f...ers/index.html

Another fascinating article on the subject.

BTW, the article here quotes John Keegan, who I have quoted before, and who Muravyets dismisses entirely as a source, so take the Salon article as you will.
Have I become so famous that now I get mentioned in threads as some kind of benchmark of something? No, the only place it seems I have that kind of notoriety is in the teeny, cramped, little cellar known as your imagination.

For the record, you miserable liar -- and as I said over and over in your Zarqawi thread before it got merged -- I DID NOT DISMISS KEEGAN AS A SOURCE. I DISMISSED YOU. Why? Because you did not actually present Keegan as source in the Zarqawi thread. You only told us about this book of his that you read. In fact, you didn't even tell us what Keegan said. You only told us what you thought of what you said he said. That is, until I yelled at you about it several times, and then you posted some paragraphs that you claimed were from the book, but you didn't even bother to post a page or chapter number to go with them, let alone a link. And you expected that your opponents would accept that as evidence corroborating your disgusting arguments in favor of genocide against Muslims. No, DK, Mr. Keegan may be as great an authority as he likes. YOU are the one I dismiss out of hand.

And I continue to dismiss you and your filthy arguments. For instance, you obviously haven't even read your own Salon.com source, because it, in fact, does not support an argument that torture is a worthwhile tactic. I quote:

It is hard to argue with success. Here were professional torturers who produced consistently reliable information in a short time. It was a breathtaking military victory against terrorism by a democracy that used torture. Yet the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture. As noted war historian John Keegan said in his recent study of military intelligence ("Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy From Napoleon to Al-Qaeda"), "it is force, not fraud or forethought, that counts" in modern wars.

So what do we learn from your beloved John Keegan? We learn that not only is torture morally indefensible and corrupt, it is also a complete waste of time, effort, and resources.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. See you in your next thread.

Torture just makes the tortured go insane.

Torture is idiotic. Take John McCain-- when he was captured in Vietnam, his captors forced him to reveal the names of other soldiers in his unit and so on. He gave them names, but just the names of sports team lineups.

Under torture, you can give out false information as easily as true. There is no way to tell whether a person is lying, because normal indicators of deception are masked by the extreme psychological stress or being under torture.

If torture works, then the Inquisition worked. The witch trials worked. The KGB worked.

Torture is just a simian approach to a problem. You can get ANYBODY to admit their guilt if you torture them. But does that mean that they are guilty or that the information they gave you is correct? Hell no.