NationStates Jolt Archive

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Only if it's extremely urgent, to prevent something like 9/11.

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Torture for the most part merely gets the victim to tell the torturer exactly what the torturer wants to hear, regardless of the truth. Apart from being dispicable, it´s not particularly reliable.

because its inhumane. govern,ents should not be allowed to use it for anything.

because its inhumane. govern,ents should not be allowed to use it for anything.
But do the holders of info care whether attacks on civilians are humane?

Basically an infringement of human rights and also ver unreliable. Theresno way to see if the tortured is telling the truth. They are most likely lying and confessing to anyhting to make it stop

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
But what if the torturee (the one getting tortured) doesn't know anything? Eventually, he/she will most likely tell the torturer anything to stop the suffering. Then if the government/security forces act on this bad intelligence, innocent people could die as a result. As someone already said, it's not necessarily reliable.

Torture for the most part merely gets the victim to tell the torturer exactly what the torturer wants to hear, regardless of the truth. Apart from being dispicable, it´s not particularly reliable.
But there are ways of finding out. Like if later they find out that the victim lied, then they can submit the victim to more torture to prevent them from lying again.

Torture for the most part merely gets the victim to tell the torturer exactly what the torturer wants to hear, regardless of the truth. Apart from being dispicable, it´s not particularly reliable.

That's why the torturer should be as vague as they can when talking to the victim. It will make it easier to see if the victim is the real deal.

Besides, with modern intelligence, it should be pretty easy to nab someone with real info.

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Why is murder wrong? Why if theft wrong? Why is assault or battery wrong?

Because it's a crime, that's why.

Only if it's extremely urgent, to prevent something like 9/11.
No. The ends most definitely do not justify the means.

But what if the torturee (the one getting tortured) doesn't know anything? Eventually, he/she will most likely tell the torturer anything to stop the suffering. Then if the government/security forces act on this bad intelligence, innocent people could die as a result. As someone already said, it's not necessarily reliable.
Fair enough, but what if the victim of torture was caught, say, working for Al Qaida? Clearly they are guilty in that circumstance.

Fair enough, but what if the victim of torture was caught, say, working for Al Qaida? Clearly they are guilty in that circumstance.

Oh? They were guilty by a court of law? Or does your inability to understand why torture is bad stretch not to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty before a court of law?

Why is murder wrong? Why if theft wrong? Why is assault or battery wrong?


No. The ends most definitely do not justify the means.
And it's the government's job to prevent these things, or to punish the perpetrators of them. So torture would be a good way to prevent something like 9/11.

Oh? They were guilty by a court of law?
Yes.

Fair enough, but what if the victim of torture was caught, say, working for Al Qaida? Clearly they are guilty in that circumstance.
Doesn't mean they actually know anything. They may know one small part of a plan (if I were in charge of Al Qaeda, that's how I'd run the show), but not enough for security forces to act on. If the torturer tries to force more information out, the torturee may make stuff up.

And it's the government's job to prevent these things, or to punish the perpetrators of them. So torture would be a good way to prevent something like 9/11.

The country that uses such methods to prevent "9/11" deserves all the 9/11s it gets.

But do the holders of info care whether attacks on civilians are humane?
Realise this: sometimes the person being tortured knows nothing about what he is being asked. then the people not only do an evil act, but also they may do more bad things because of the false information the person would give to get out

And it's the government's job to prevent these things, or to punish the perpetrators of them. So torture would be a good way to prevent something like 9/11.
No. Like I just said, the ends do not justify the means.

Besides, if there's only the slightest chance that you're torturing the wrong "terror suspect" - it is you who will become the terrorist, no matter which badge you carry.

Yes.

Then torture is even more wrong.

Fair enough, but what if the victim of torture was caught, say, working for Al Qaida? Clearly they are guilty in that circumstance.

Still doesn't mean the know anything.

The country that uses such methods to prevent "9/11" deserves all the 9/11s it gets.

Right, Ward Churchill...

I don't see an alternative to torture.

If you mother was about to be killed, and you had someone who was complicit in the action at your disposal, I think you would do whatever neccessary to get them to tell you how it can be stopped. I dare say you may resort to physical abuse, ie torture - in order to save the life of a loved one. I can't see anyone in their right mind idly standing by while their loved one is about to be killed, while at the same time you have the opportunity to stop it by hurting someone who is complicit in the action.

I don't see why it should be any different for governments. People put on their self-righteous little hats and say that it's inhumane. What would you suggest as an alternative in this scenario? Maybe a coffee and some biscuits?

Torture for the most part merely gets the victim to tell the torturer exactly what the torturer wants to hear, regardless of the truth. Apart from being dispicable, it´s not particularly reliable.

how about using something like sodium amadol (or amydol)?

Basically an infringement of human rights and also ver unreliable. Theresno way to see if the tortured is telling the truth. They are most likely lying and confessing to anyhting to make it stop

it IS an infringment of human rights. i used to participate in amnesty international and if a country like belarus tortured someone we call it human rights abuse. and what if you tortured the wrong person?

And it's the government's job to prevent these things, or to punish the perpetrators of them. So torture would be a good way to prevent something like 9/11.
So you endorse crimes to prevent crimes? Way to go, knucklehead.

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

because it elevates the needs of the whole and says they're more important than the rights and wellbeing of a single individual.
Practical maybe, but not in keeping with the principles the western world claims to represent.

But do the holders of info care whether attacks on civilians are humane?
That's beyond the point. Two wrongs don't make one right.

So you endorse crimes to prevent crimes? Way to go, knucklehead.

I endorse give one person a few electroshocks to save 3000.

I endorse give one person a few electroshocks to save 3000.

We'll see what you feel about that when you're the person being shocked...

I endorse give one person a few electroshocks to save 3000.
but what if that one person isn't the right person? or they tell the wrong info?

because it elevates the needs of the whole and says they're more important than the rights and wellbeing of a single individual.
Practical maybe, but not in keeping with the principles the western world claims to represent.

the rights of the individual do not extend to withholding information related to the destruction of multiple lives (or any single person's life, for that matter... among other crimes).

Being tortured is the worst experience a person can go through, many tortured people pray for death.

Also, it doesn't work, the stress of torture is so intense that a person is likely to say anything to get it to stop. The torturer will wait for something plausable to believe, whether or not it is true or not.

That's beyond the point. Two wrongs don't make one right.


If that information were to save you and your family, I am sure there would be no complaints about it from you.

Fair enough, but what if the victim of torture was caught, say, working for Al Qaida? Clearly they are guilty in that circumstance.
well, lets say the torture will start only on dangerous known terrorists. would it stop there?
goverment with too much force and not enough rules for using this force, probably take it to the extreme.
next they can torture criminals or civilians only beacuse of their suspects. they will torture even people who wasn't do anything, and those eventually lie to avoid more pain. that way, you will get unreliable intelegence which not only can't help, it also can harm.

besides, if we agree that the modern intelegnce let us more reliable and humanic ways to get our information, the ethical move will be stop torturing.

If that information were to save you and your family, I am sure there would be no complaints about it from you.

There would be from me.

Being tortured is the worst experience a person can go through, many tortured people pray for death.

Also, it doesn't work, the stress of torture is so intense that a person is likely to say anything to get it to stop. The torturer will wait for something plausable to believe, whether or not it is true or not.

hence the use of sodium amytol (however it's spelled) -- relatively painless, and you get accurate information, or at least to the extent that what the person says is correct

I don't see an alternative to torture.

If you mother was about to be killed, and you had someone who was complicit in the action at your disposal, I think you would do whatever neccessary to get them to tell you how it can be stopped. I dare say you may resort to physical abuse, ie torture - in order to save the life of a loved one. I can't see anyone in their right mind idly standing by while their loved one is about to be killed, while at the same time you have the opportunity to stop it by hurting someone who is complicit in the action.

I don't see why it should be any different for governments. People put on their self-righteous little hats and say that it's inhumane. What would you suggest as an alternative in this scenario? Maybe a coffee and some biscuits?
No matter the circumstances, it wouldn't make torture any better. Still, the ends do not justify the means.
Taking it even one step further and giving that kind of power to a goverment leads you down a very slippery slope. Bad enough the US and who knows who else already has concentration camps. What's next? Preemptive executions?

We'll see what you feel about that when you're the person being shocked...

Not likely, since I don't plan on ramming an airplane into a skyscraper.

torture isnt used to stop 9/11-like events. it is used to extract confessions from suspects or to get them to finger other people. its not a reliable way to get information

consider the torture of american POWs by the north vietnamese. those interrogations went on for years, well after there could be any reasonable assumption that the men had any useful information. so why did the torture continue?

same with guantanamo bay. whatever useful info could have been forced out of those men has been gotten. any continued "rough interrogation" is useless and we must ask ourselves why we continue doing it.

treating prisoners from other nations cruelly encourages other nations to treat american prisoners cruelly. it also lessens the likelihood that enemy troops will surrender to us rather than fighting to the bitter end.

There would be from me.

Well, then you seriously have your priorities fucked up.

I suppose, had al-Zarqawi been taken alive, you'd be against giving him a few shocks to get info about insurgents?

There would be from me.


And if the information stopped a terrorist from blowing up a gay rights parade? Would you still complain then?

needless of what anyone says, they wouldn't be too damning on something that saved their life.

Not likely, since I don't plan on ramming an airplane into a a skyscraper.

But how do we know that? Perhaps a little voltage will jog your memory hmmmm?

No matter the circumstances, it wouldn't make torture any better. Still, the ends do not justify the means.
Taking it even one step further and giving that kind of power to a goverment leads you down a very slippery slope. Bad enough the US and who knows who else already has concentration camps. What's next? Preemptive executions?

I agree, it is a very slippery slope, and one that should be avoided, if possible. But you can't get up in arms about it without offering a sound and workable alternative.

Not likely, since I don't plan on ramming an airplane into a skyscraper.

And - of COURSE - you KNOW we'd have the right person in custody?

The point is torture doesn't work. If you torture the wrong person you'll get lies which you may believe and act upon which could cause more unnecessary hurt. And if in the slim chance the right person is caught they could tell a pack of lies or (even slimmer chance) tell the truth so you may save people which is a good thing BUT does that make you any better than the person whowas going to comit the crime?

I don't see an alternative to torture.

If you mother was about to be killed, and you had someone who was complicit in the action at your disposal, I think you would do whatever neccessary to get them to tell you how it can be stopped...

And, there is the problem.

If someone complicit is at my disposal...

But what if we've got the wrong guy? Or one of the right guys... but one who doesn't know anything?

Or one who DOES know something - but has been set up? Fed false information... THINKING he has real information?

Then you torture an 'innocent', for no reward?

And if the information stopped a terrorist from blowing up a gay rights parade? Would you still complain then?

Yes, I would. The ends never justify the means.

Not likely, since I don't plan on ramming an airplane into a skyscraper.

What does it matter to me what you'd do or not? I'll be torturing you to confess.

And, there is the problem.

If someone complicit is at my disposal...

But what if we've got the wrong guy? Or one of the right guys... but one who doesn't know anything?

Or one who DOES know something - but has been set up? Fed false information... THINKING he has real information?

Then you torture an 'innocent', for no reward?


But what other choice is there? If it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it. One man's pain to possible save a thousand lives, well I assume that is something I can live with.

Yes, I would. The ends never justify the means.


Then by what means would you use to extract information that could save lives?

But how do we know that? Perhaps a little voltage will jog your memory hmmmm?

Since, I've never done anything anti-Western, and there's no proof whatsoever that I ever would, your point it moot.

You make it sound like we'd just grab random people off the street and hope they know something.

Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it.

But what other choice is there? If it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it. One man's pain to possible save a thousand lives, well I assume that is something I can live with.

Would you though? If you were a torturer would you be able to sleep knowing you inflicted great physical and mental pain on someone? I don't think I would be able to

Someone said something about using torture now might get out of control and lead to civilians being tortured and something about concentration camps. Don't you realize that if another 9/11 were to happen here in America, that would take place anyways? However, if we use a controlled means of torture, meaning only torturing those caught on the field of battle, of those that have close ties to a terrorist cell, we can stop all of it all together.

What does it matter to me what you'd do or not? I'll be torturing you to confess.

And then, you've missed the point entirely. We don't torture to be confessions. We torture to get correct information. From people who are suspected or proven of collaboration or involvement.

Would you though? If you were a torturer would you be able to sleep knowing you inflicted great physical and mental pain on someone? I don't think I would be able to

No, I would not be able to either. But unfortunately in this world there are people who wish to do harm to others who are innocent - and fortunately there are also people who are capable of doing harm to those who are guilty.

And then, you've missed the point entirely. We don't torture to be confessions. We torture to get correct information. From people who are suspected or proven of collaboration or involvement.
Potato, potahto.

Would you though? If you were a torturer would you be able to sleep knowing you inflicted great physical and mental pain on someone? I don't think I would be able to


Well, that is why I am not a torturer. Howevern, I assume that those people realize that they are potentially saving lives, so wouldn't it be a sort of satisfying job for them?

Would you though? If you were a torturer would you be able to sleep knowing you inflicted great physical and mental pain on someone? I don't think I would be able to

I'd sleep better than the guy operating the lethal injection machine.

But what other choice is there? If it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it. One man's pain to possible save a thousand lives, well I assume that is something I can live with.

Unless the guy knows nothing. Or - was the wrong guy to start with. Or - knows too little, and makes stuff up to fill the gaps?

If you HONESTLY believe "it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it"... then you wouldn't object to being tortured, right?

But what other choice is there? If it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it. One man's pain to possible save a thousand lives, well I assume that is something I can live with.
if that is what torture WAS it might be justified

but no one ever catches the bad guy before he acts and tortures the truth out of him just in time to stop the bombing of a gay pride parade

what happens is that they are picked up after the bombing is all done and are tortured to confess or to name other people involved.

there is no sense imagining the scenario that doesnt happen. its better to go with reality.

If you HONESTLY believe "it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it"... then you wouldn't object to being tortured, right?

I object to being tortured because I haven't done anything wrong. When I have, let me know.

This is ridiculous, essentially everybody who agrees with torture in certain circumstances, assumes that:
1)the person being tortured is guilty
2)the torturee knows a significant amount of info about the plot in question
3)the torturee is going to give accurate information
4)that terrorist attacks are easily avoidable with the proper information
(the govt was aware of a plan for the attacks on 9/11 yet still didnt/couldnt stop them)

and somebody mentioned something about if, Zarqawi had survived the US attack on his safe house that torture is justified. simply, IT IS NOT!
you must also remember that innocent people are often wrongly convicted of crimes only to be later proven innocent the same is true with torture.
the legal system is certainly not infallible and neither is the "War On Terror"

...feature of this thread, is not the number of people who seem to think that torture is a good idea...in spite of its well-documented ineffectiveness.
:(
But, rather, that I find myself on the same side of an issue with Fass.
:eek:

Unless the guy knows nothing. Or - was the wrong guy to start with. Or - knows too little, and makes stuff up to fill the gaps?

If you HONESTLY believe "it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it"... then you wouldn't object to being tortured, right?


Well, was I caught on a battlefield, or do I have ties Al-qaeda, or any other looney group? No, so thus I won't be tortured.

I realize that torture is inhumane, and has its flaws, but what other way is there? What would we do, kindly ask a terrorist to give us information, or say "hey, you tell us this, and we will let you go."?

This is ridiculous, essentially everybody who agrees with torture in certain circumstances, assumes that:
1)the person being tortured is guilty
2)the torturee knows a significant amount of info about the plot in question
3)the torturee is going to give accurate information
4)that terrorist attacks are easily avoidable with the proper information
(the govt was aware of a plan for the attacks on 9/11 yet still didnt/couldnt stop them)

And, once again, I must point out that you are critically underestimating Western intelligence agencies. They don't grab random people out of their houses.

you must also remember that innocent people are often wrongly convicted of crimes only to be later proven innocent the same is true with torture.
the legal system is certainly not infallible and neither is the "War On Terror"

Often? Hardly. Only a handful are wrongly convicted.

This is ridiculous, essentially everybody who agrees with torture in certain circumstances, assumes that:
1)the person being tortured is guilty
2)the torturee knows a significant amount of info about the plot in question
3)the torturee is going to give accurate information
4)that terrorist attacks are easily avoidable with the proper information
(the govt was aware of a plan for the attacks on 9/11 yet still didnt/couldnt stop them)


So are you then also assuming that everyone who doesn;t believe in torture:
1) believes that all people who are being tortured are angels and innocent of any crime or intent to commit crime
2) that all people who are tortured know nothing about anything and will never produce any helpful information
3) that the torturee is going to resist the torture and give false information until the cows come home
4) that terrorist attacks are inavoidable with the proper information.

How bland.

As I said before, the simple fact is torture works:

"Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it."

Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it.

Simple logic does prevail...so long as you don't mind logic that places the value of the subject at (roughly) zero.

Torture is just slightly more than 0% effective...so as long as your subject has no value, torture pays.

I just don't support a government that subscribes to this kind of logic.

I object to being tortured because I haven't done anything wrong. When I have, let me know.

Well, of course YOU say you haven't done anything wrong... but how will WE know... until we torture you a bit?

Obviously - if you are one of the bad guys, you're BOUND to lie about it, no?

Torture is just slightly more than 0% effective...so as long as your subject has no value, torture pays.

What logic is that? I torture a known terrorist operative, I get information. How is that 0% effective?

You know what? Disregard everything I have said about torture. It is not reliable nor effective, so thus its just an act of terrorism on its own.

...feature of this thread, is not the number of people who seem to think that torture is a good idea...in spite of its well-documented ineffectiveness.

Are there any actual studies on the ineffectiveness of torture? If we don't have a few peer-reviewed studies on it, I don't think we could say that it is well-documented. So think you could show me some of this large body of documentation?

Simple logic does prevail...so long as you don't mind logic that places the value of the subject at (roughly) zero.

Torture is just slightly more than 0% effective...so as long as your subject has no value, torture pays.

I just don't support a government that subscribes to this kind of logic.

The value of the subject is clearly more than 0%. To spend time and money on torture means there is clearly a value in doing it, and it must be profitable because it is still being done.

I would love a perfect world where this would not be required, but you need to slap yourself in the face - we live in a far from perfect world.

Well, was I caught on a battlefield, or do I have ties Al-qaeda, or any other looney group? No, so thus I won't be tortured.

I realize that torture is inhumane, and has its flaws, but what other way is there? What would we do, kindly ask a terrorist to give us information, or say "hey, you tell us this, and we will let you go."?

You're a christian right?

Well, of course YOU say you haven't done anything wrong... but how will WE know... until we torture you a bit?

Obviously - if you are one of the bad guys, you're BOUND to lie about it, no?

God you're full of shit. The government knows far better than you, and they haven't come to arrest me yet. Your point is m00t.

As I said before, the simple fact is torture works:

"Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it."

A lot of people have used torture for pleasure... often CLAIMING information as the reason.

Also - a lot of the hisotry of torture has been geared towards 'confession'... NOT toward justice.

God you're full of shit. The government knows far better than you, and they haven't come to arrest me yet. Your point is m00t.

You don't have to call me god, if you don't want to.

Maybe the government just has you under observation? How would WE know... how would you?

Also - a lot of the hisotry of torture has been geared towards 'confession'... NOT toward justice.

You're right. Thats probably one of the reasons why it would be hard to get an accurate picture of how well torture actually works

You're right. Thats probably one of the reasons why it would be hard to get an accurate picture of how well torture actually works

Well - we KNOW it doesn't work - since the application of pain can be proved to eventually yeild ANY result you wish.

Thus - when you look at the history of torture (Churches torturing heretics, for example, to force them to 'confess their satanic associations)... there is no real reason to believe torture has EVER been very good at getting 'truth'.

But it IS damn good at getting confessions. Of ANYTHING.

The value of the subject is clearly more than 0%. To spend time and money on torture means there is clearly a value in doing it, and it must be profitable because it is still being done.

I would love a perfect world where this would not be required, but you need to slap yourself in the face - we live in a far from perfect world.

I think you've missed the point. How many hours of torture to we have to inflict to save a single American life? My problem with your logic is that you suggest an infinite ratio is acceptable. The monetary cost of torture is very, very small...but that doesn't make it right.

A lot of people have used torture for pleasure... often CLAIMING information as the reason.

Also - a lot of the hisotry of torture has been geared towards 'confession'... NOT toward justice.

A lot of governments use torture for information gathering and for assistance with foiling plots.

You're a christian right?


Yeah, so?

read post # 71

I think you've missed the point. How many hours of torture to we have to inflict to save a single American life? My problem with your logic is that you suggest an infinite ratio is acceptable. The monetary cost of torture is very, very small...but that doesn't make it right.

That's a whole new topic? What price for life? Shit, can't answer that one...

My point is simple - if it didn't work why would it still be used? Until a method is introduced that manages to placate all the bleeding hearts in the world, then torture will contniue to be used as the primary method for seeking information from captives.

I didn't miss the point, you missed my point: It works, it has survived the test of time and is still going strong.

And, once again, I must point out that you are critically underestimating Western intelligence agencies. They don't grab random people out of their houses.



Often? Hardly. Only a handful are wrongly convicted.
yeah right. tell that to the guy who was grabbed off the streets of.....hertzogovina? macedonia? where ever.....and whisked off to a secret torture camp for a few months. after a while he was released because they realized they had the wrong man. his family had no idea what had become of him.

Well - we KNOW it doesn't work - since the application of pain can be proved to eventually yeild ANY result you wish.

Well, that applies to the application of pain. However, there are many things considered torture and illegal today that don't involve the extreme pain that would make someone confess anything. Torture that tests endurance, psychology, etc.

Claiming it works or doesn't work is oversimplifying it. There are many cases where it doesn't work, and many cases where it does. I think the dispute over its effectiness is a secondary argument to justify morality-based legislation prohibiting it.

Oh? They were guilty by a court of law? Or does your inability to understand why torture is bad stretch not to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty before a court of law?

so if you murder someone but aren't caught it doesn't count? seriously could you have said anything more stupid?

Thus - when you look at the history of torture (Churches torturing heretics, for example, to force them to 'confess their satanic associations)... there is no real reason to believe torture has EVER been very good at getting 'truth'.

I LOVE that logic. It didn't work for idiots in the 10th Century, it won't work for the most advance nations of the modern world!

yeah right. tell that to the guy who was grabbed off the streets of.....hertzogovina? macedonia? where ever.....and whisked off to a secret torture camp for a few months. after a while he was released because they realized they had the wrong man. his family had no idea what had become of him.

There'll always be mistakes. Just not every day, like you make it sound.

Something I've noticed on this thread so far is that people are arguing about two different goals in torture - torture for evidence and torture for confession.

The latter is the case where torture will produce a confession of almost anything. "Are you a witch?" *puts face in bucket of water* "yes, yes, I'm a witch! stop torturing me!."

The former, however, is something that can be verified. If someone is torture to tell the exact location of a kidnapped victim or bomb, they can't get off the hook by lying. If they lie, the police go and check and find it isn't there, then they will know that it is a lie and can resume torture for the real answer.

Thus, torture becomes more effective for gaining verifiable evidence than for confessions.

Something I've noticed on this thread so far is that people are arguing about two different goals in torture - torture for evidence and torture for confession.

The latter is the case where torture will produce a confession of almost anything. "Are you a witch?" *puts face in bucket of water* "yes, yes, I'm a witch! stop torturing me!."

The former, however, is something that can be verified. If someone is torture to tell the exact location of a kidnapped victim or bomb, they can't get off the hook by lying. If they lie, the police go and check and find it isn't there, then they will know that it is a lie and can resume torture for the real answer.

Thus, torture becomes more effective for gaining verifiable evidence than for confessions.

But the thing with confessions is this:

Back in the day, simply saying you were a witch would have been enough for you to be barbequed.

However, today, a confession must be backed up by substantial concrete evidence to prove your confession correct.

All the same, your point is quite right.

Yeah, so?

read post # 71

I saw it. The point I was going to make, is that 'dangerous organisation' is in the eye of the beholder.

Christianity hopes for the destruction of Israel, the end of human civilisation as we know it, wars, pestilence, plague... rivers of blood, cats and dogs, living together.... the whole thing.

It's an apocalypse cult, serving no other purpose but to bring about the end of the world.


Depending on your point of view... no?

A lot of governments use torture for information gathering and for assistance with foiling plots.

Really?

Who?

And how effective is it? Cite?

Or - is it safe to assume that MAYBE, lots of governments use torture... whether or NOT it is actually helpful?

I saw it. The point I was going to make, is that 'dangerous organisation' is in the eye of the beholder.

Christianity hopes for the destruction of Israel, the end of human civilisation as we know it, wars, pestilence, plague... rivers of blood, cats and dogs, living together.... the whole thing.

It's an apocalypse cult, serving no other purpose but to bring about the end of the world.


Depending on your point of view... no?

I love how everything always boils down to religion. Who was the dickhead who invented religion? I wish to find him and torture him for a confession.

Really?

Who?

And how effective is it? Cite?

Or - is it safe to assume that MAYBE, lots of governments use torture... whether or NOT it is actually helpful?

Hahaha... I was just using your statement and changing the subject. Perhaps if you answer your questions in relation to your assertions first I will go to the trouble to also cite my sweeping assumption...

"Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
A lot of people have used torture for pleasure... often CLAIMING information as the reason.

Also - a lot of the hisotry of torture has been geared towards 'confession'... NOT toward justice."

Well, that applies to the application of pain. However, there are many things considered torture and illegal today that don't involve the extreme pain that would make someone confess anything. Torture that tests endurance, psychology, etc.

Claiming it works or doesn't work is oversimplifying it. There are many cases where it doesn't work, and many cases where it does. I think the dispute over its effectiness is a secondary argument to justify morality-based legislation prohibiting it.

That's because the moral argument actually becomes a little redundant when you consider how unreliable torture is.

If something is basically ineffective - the only reason you KEEP doing it, is because you LIKE it...

I saw it. The point I was going to make, is that 'dangerous organisation' is in the eye of the beholder.

Christianity hopes for the destruction of Israel, the end of human civilisation as we know it, wars, pestilence, plague... rivers of blood, cats and dogs, living together.... the whole thing.

It's an apocalypse cult, serving no other purpose but to bring about the end of the world.


Depending on your point of view... no?


Right, I can see that. And Im not too sure that "christians" aren't like that anyways :p

There'll always be mistakes. Just not every day, like you make it sound.
what percent wrong is acceptable?

10%? so that of 1000 people tortured 100 are wrongly tortured and therefore can only ever give false information? what if we act on the ravings of an innocent man driven to make false claims? is that OK too?

That's because the moral argument actually becomes a little redundant when you consider how unreliable torture is.

If something is basically ineffective - the only reason you KEEP doing it, is because you LIKE it...

The question I always have is, "what is torture?"

If, during questioning, I give you a drug that makes it impossible for you to remember being questioned (and that's all it does), is that torture? Even if I do no other coercive act?

Millions of people get this drug to this limit every day - it's Versed, used in outpatient surgical settings, and no one complains about long term psychological harm from its use, so even used in this setting, it's physically and mentally harmless.

Imagine a person being interrogated not only not remembering any lies they may have made up, but not even remember being asked any questions.

You could ask each day, and see what pattern of answers you're getting.

Wait a minute guys, haven't you watched 24? What if Jack didn't torture (break off some fingers) that American guy working with Ali? Then they would have gotten no where and LA would have been nuked.

I LOVE that logic. It didn't work for idiots in the 10th Century, it won't work for the most advance nations of the modern world!

It's not bad logic, really... if you are still using the same definition of torture.

In the tenth century, it was impossible for a man to jump to the moon... well, it STILLis... we just used a different technique.

Inn the tenth century, torture was an inaccurate tool for gaining information... it still is, which is why we use different techniques.

Except the USA, which seems intent on going down in history as the rebirth of the Fall of the Roman Empire...

I think its ridiculous to ask whether the person being tortured cares that the attack is inhumane,the are the bad guys,we're the good guys,we have higher standards than them:cool:

DXSUCK IT!

what percent wrong is acceptable?

10%? so that of 1000 people tortured 100 are wrongly tortured and therefore can only ever give false information? what if we act on the ravings of an innocent man driven to make false claims? is that OK too?

Again, right, it's harsh, but you can't go arguing that it stinks and then not provide an alternative...

The former, however, is something that can be verified. If someone is torture to tell the exact location of a kidnapped victim or bomb, they can't get off the hook by lying. If they lie, the police go and check and find it isn't there, then they will know that it is a lie and can resume torture for the real answer.

Thus, torture becomes more effective for gaining verifiable evidence than for confessions.

No - it really doesn't... if you keep torturing someone, and they KEEP telling you the wrong locations for the bomb (or whatever)... mayeb they don't know?

Torture will tell you anything you want... but it won't make it true.

Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it.
If you want to use logic, you should take a look at how torture is NOT acceptably used in criminal investigations.

Torture may force confessions, but it yields little in voluntary and useful information.

It's not bad logic, really... if you are still using the same definition of torture.

In the tenth century, it was impossible for a man to jump to the moon... well, it STILLis... we just used a different technique.

Inn the tenth century, torture was an inaccurate tool for gaining information... it still is, which is why we use different techniques.

Except the USA, which seems intent on going down in history as the rebirth of the Fall of the Roman Empire...


Glad I am not the only one to see that ;)

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

1. Because it doesn't work. People will say anything under duress, making torture unreliable.

2. Because when you start using torture on your enemies it gives your enemies a green light to use torture on you.

3. Because you give up the moral high ground and create a public relations nightmare.

4. Because it is morally wrong.

Hahaha... I was just using your statement and changing the subject. Perhaps if you answer your questions in relation to your assertions first I will go to the trouble to also cite my sweeping assumption...

"Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
A lot of people have used torture for pleasure... often CLAIMING information as the reason.

Also - a lot of the hisotry of torture has been geared towards 'confession'... NOT toward justice."

So - basically... you had nothing?

No - it really doesn't... if you keep torturing someone, and they KEEP telling you the wrong locations for the bomb (or whatever)... mayeb they don't know?

Torture will tell you anything you want... but it won't make it true.

Well, you can assume that anything anyone says when even subjected to simple questioning is not necessarily true - even if they appear genuinely cooperative. All information has to be correlated with other sources.

Right, I can see that. And Im not too sure that "christians" aren't like that anyways :p

I certainly know some who get pretty rabid at just the sort of Revelation vision of Christianity I just described. Rural Georgia is a scary place.

Do I honestly think MOST Christians are like that? Hell - I hope not.

hence the use of sodium amytol (however it's spelled) -- relatively painless, and you get accurate information, or at least to the extent that what the person says is correct
I would still consider that assault. If I cut your hair without your consent I'd be treated as assault, why would injecting chemicals be any different?
No, absolutely despicable.

Well, then you seriously have your priorities fucked up.
I suppose, had al-Zarqawi been taken alive, you'd be against giving him a few shocks to get info about insurgents?
The more I read of your statements, the clearer it gets that your priorities are fucked up big time.
Yes, I would've been against giving anyone shocks, even if I was only asking for the time.

I agree, it is a very slippery slope, and one that should be avoided, if possible. But you can't get up in arms about it without offering a sound and workable alternative.
Aha. Thing is, though: If there is no alternative, then it's tough luck and you can't do shit about it. That's just the way it is, then.

Let's see. What if all the people who hold the information you want are gone, except for a woman and a child. Would you torture the woman? She doesn't tell you anything. Would you then torture the child?

What about being a suspect, wouldn't you have the right to remain silent?

I honestly don't care that there is no "sound and workable" alternative. Using torture is not the way to go, simple as that.

But what other choice is there? If it has the possibility to save lives, i am all for it. One man's pain to possible save a thousand lives, well I assume that is something I can live with.
No. Even though there might not be a sound alternative, math has nothing to do with it.

How many people are you willing to torture or sacrifice to safe others?

One? Two? Ten? One hundred? A couple of thousand? A million? Six million?

To safe how many? One or two? Ten? A couple of hundred? Would you be willing to sacrifice a thousand people to safe a thousand? Or only hundred? Maybe you'd even torture a quarter of the world's population to safe two or three Americans?

That's simply not acceptable, at least by civilised people.

Logic must prevail here: if torture did or does not work, then simple logic says it would not be used anymore. The fact is, it must produce results, for it it had proven fruitless, why would we bother resorting to it after so many countless centuries of using it.
Very telling that "some" people(s) still believe in that concept and it's even more showing that the US don't find anything wrong about it.

Someone said something about using torture now might get out of control and lead to civilians being tortured and something about concentration camps. Don't you realize that if another 9/11 were to happen here in America, that would take place anyways? However, if we use a controlled means of torture, meaning only torturing those caught on the field of battle, of those that have close ties to a terrorist cell, we can stop all of it all together.
Like those people sold to the US by warlords in Afghanistan for their bounty reward? Like those who happen to simply life in a war zone?
It already is out of control, and we've had a discussion thread on the secret CIA flights, abducting people (civilians) off the streets in Europe and elsewhere, to be flown to undisclosed locations in countries that condone torture.
No. Fuck that!

Well, that is why I am not a torturer. Howevern, I assume that those people realize that they are potentially saving lives, so wouldn't it be a sort of satisfying job for them?
Oh, I'm just doing my satisfying job. I'm just following orders. I'm saving lives by doing this. I'm saving my people. I'm only doing this for the good of my people.
No. Exactly this kind of reasoning was used in my country 60 years ago. And now, all of the sudden, it should be okay because it's done in the name of freedom and democracy?!?
That's sick!

Again, right, it's harsh, but you can't go arguing that it stinks and then not provide an alternative...

NOT PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE???

alternatives are used every day in every civilized nation on earth.

So - basically... you had nothing?

That's right, it was a failed attempt at taking the piss out of your post. Must've flown over your head, hence my description of a failed attempt.

Never mind, anyway, it's 4:30 here in AUS, I'm out.

Good luck trashing this one out. You may be in for a torturous session.

The question I always have is, "what is torture?"

If, during questioning, I give you a drug that makes it impossible for you to remember being questioned (and that's all it does), is that torture? Even if I do no other coercive act?

Millions of people get this drug to this limit every day - it's Versed, used in outpatient surgical settings, and no one complains about long term psychological harm from its use, so even used in this setting, it's physically and mentally harmless.

Imagine a person being interrogated not only not remembering any lies they may have made up, but not even remember being asked any questions.

You could ask each day, and see what pattern of answers you're getting.

Personally - I wouldn't call that torture... I don't find it especially cruel, certainly.

I still wouldn't necessarily assume it would be noticably more effective than 'actual' torture... because it still required the 'victim' to be informed, and assumes they know things.

Maybe not more effective - but I'd (personally) say not torture, either.

Wait a minute guys, haven't you watched 24? What if Jack didn't torture (break off some fingers) that American guy working with Ali? Then they would have gotten no where and LA would have been nuked.

If I'm not wrong... that is fiction, yes?

Well, you can assume that anything anyone says when even subjected to simple questioning is not necessarily true - even if they appear genuinely cooperative. All information has to be correlated with other sources.

Oh, absolutely.

However - that's the thing... you are looking for corroboration ANYWAY (one assumes)... so - how is torture MORE desirable than regular questioning?

If they don't know anything... you've tortured an innocent, and found out their story can't be corroborated.

If they DO know anything, you're looking for corroboration in other evidence, anyway...

Really?

Who?

And how effective is it? Cite?

Or - is it safe to assume that MAYBE, lots of governments use torture... whether or NOT it is actually helpful?

One account of torture used by a government with successful results that virtually no one disputes is the French Battle of Algiers. It was quite effective. You could probably find information about it anywhere, but here's an article:

Does Torture Work? (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html)

Does torture work?

The French military's use of torture in Algeria is often cited as a success story. But the real story is more complex. Second of two parts.

By Darius Rejali

June 21, 2004 | 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.

So really, its oversimplifying it to claim that torture doesn't work, or that we have consistent results of its failure. We don't have consistent results of its failure, as there are many historical accounts of torture working with dramatically positive results, even in recent history (Algiers was just in the 50s).

Oh, absolutely.

However - that's the thing... you are looking for corroboration ANYWAY (one assumes)... so - how is torture MORE desirable than regular questioning?

Regular questioning in some states is considered illegal as torture in others. Not to mention with regular questioning someone can just refuse to speak at all. Torture in any form may be able to elicit something, which has at least a 50% chance of being more accurate than nothing at all (considering that its either true or false).

I think its ridiculous to ask whether the person being tortured cares that the attack is inhumane,the are the bad guys,we're the good guys,we have higher standards than them:cool:

DXSUCK IT!

Didn't your Kindergarten teacher ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

It boils down to this.
1) There is a lot of data showing that torture doesn't create positive response.

2) Cruel and Unusual punishment is wrong (and unconstitutional) because you drop to the level of your foes.

3) The judicial system is not perfect. Torturing the wrong guy is a possibility.

4) All this creates is a system in which harm and hate form a vicious cycle that sends the world back to the dark ages.

I object to being tortured because I haven't done anything wrong. When I have, let me know.
No. We're just gonna throw you in a cell. You get three meals, an orange PJ and if you like, a bible.
We'll strap you to a carriage because you're not supposed to walk around.
Then we'll keep you in a small cell, "talk" to you ever once in a while, etc.

But we're not telling you what you've done wrong. You know exactly what you've done wrong, now don't you? Oh, you don't? Think harder! You haven't done anything wrong? Well, if you hadn't, you wouldn't be here.

Sound familiar? I sure hope so!

Here's some brainfood for you:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller

The value of the subject is clearly more than 0%. To spend time and money on torture means there is clearly a value in doing it, and it must be profitable because it is still being done.

I would love a perfect world where this would not be required, but you need to slap yourself in the face - we live in a far from perfect world.
I'd be more than willing to receive that slap in the face and turn the other cheek.
How in the world do you think are you going to make the world better by abandoning humanity and turn to means like torture? Beats me!

A lot of governments use torture for information gathering and for assistance with foiling plots.
Well ain't ya proud that the US is now among them, the bastion of freedom, spreading goodness throughout the world, the shining example of progress and justice!
That road your country is traveling not only is a dead end, it will lead down the same path that Germany has taken 70 years ago.

I LOVE that logic. It didn't work for idiots in the 10th Century, it won't work for the most advance nations of the modern world!
HAHAHA! Yes, I'm laughing at you, Großdeutschland! Because it shows that your government does indeed belong back to the dark ages where might makes right. Technically, you might be the most advanced, and you might have the "best" army.
But what you do with that is despicably and not progress, but a backslide to a time I had hoped the Western, "civilised" countries had left behind.

One account of torture used by a government with successful results that virtually no one disputes is the French Battle of Algiers. It was quite effective. You could probably find information about it anywhere, but here's an article:

Does Torture Work? (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html)



So really, its oversimplifying it to claim that torture doesn't work, or that we have consistent results of its failure. We don't have consistent results of its failure, as there are many historical accounts of torture working with dramatically positive results, even in recent history (Algiers was just in the 50s).

But, doesn't that article say that it was actually sheer volume of 'on the ground' units that made the difference?

Indeed - though an attempt at positive spin may be put on it... it doesn't actually seem to SHOW any real advantage came from torture.

So really, its oversimplifying it to claim that torture doesn't work, or that we have consistent results of its failure. We don't have consistent results of its failure, as there are many historical accounts of torture working with dramatically positive results, even in recent history (Algiers was just in the 50s).

Read the rest of the article. It actually shows all of the other costs that torture had. The third page also shows how working without torture is as effective as working with it and that the war was won with force not intelligence.

Regular questioning in some states is considered illegal as torture in others. Not to mention with regular questioning someone can just refuse to speak at all. Torture in any form may be able to elicit something, which has at least a 50% chance of being more accurate than nothing at all (considering that its either true or false).

50%? Would ONLY be a pertinent statistic if the 'question' could be answered in a binary fashion, AND assumes the torture victim HAS pertinent information to give.

If the person, on the other hand, knows nothing you want to know... and/or the 'question' is NOT binary - the staistic isn't going to be in the same sport as the 50%, let alone in it's ballpark.

Read the rest of the article. It actually shows all of the other costs that torture had. The third page also shows how working without torture is as effective as working with it and that the war was won with force not intelligence.

I've read the whole article. It didn't dispute that torture was effective. It stated that torture was not the sole reason that it was effective in this situation, and that it isn't the reason that the war was won. It contrasted the effectiveness of torture in Algeria vs that in Vietnam, and stated it wasn't effective in Vietnam because it wasn't anywhere near the same situation that Algeria was.

Now, granted, torture doesn't always work in any case. In fact, I picked an article that was distinctly anti-torture to point out that even those of us who are against torture can admit the fact that there are documented cases of torture working in history.

And, if you check up on the Battle of Algiers, its hard to find any information without the mention of how torture was a large factor in victory. Such as Wikipedia's entry on it:

"The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria."

I've read the whole article. It didn't dispute that torture was effective. It stated that torture was not the sole reason that it was effective in this situation, and that it isn't the reason that the war was won. It contrasted the effectiveness of torture in Algeria vs that in Vietnam, and stated it wasn't effective in Vietnam because it wasn't anywhere near the same situation that Algeria was.

Now, granted, torture doesn't always work in any case. In fact, I picked an article that was distinctly anti-torture to point out that even those of us who are against torture can admit the fact that there are documented cases of torture working in history.

And, if you check up on the Battle of Algiers, its hard to find any information without the mention of how torture was a large factor in victory. Such as Wikipedia's entry on it:

"The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria."

That quote doesn't say what you say it says...

The question I always have is, "what is torture?"

If, during questioning, I give you a drug that makes it impossible for you to remember being questioned (and that's all it does), is that torture? Even if I do no other coercive act?

Millions of people get this drug to this limit every day - it's Versed, used in outpatient surgical settings, and no one complains about long term psychological harm from its use, so even used in this setting, it's physically and mentally harmless.

Imagine a person being interrogated not only not remembering any lies they may have made up, but not even remember being asked any questions.

You could ask each day, and see what pattern of answers you're getting.
Even though you might not remember, if it is forced on you, it is wrong. Using that drug with the aim to ease the aftereffects of an operation is something totally different than using it for those means you've described. It is morally wrong.

Again, right, it's harsh, but you can't go arguing that it stinks and then not provide an alternative...
Sometimes, doing the right thing means not to do anything. Which, in this case, would be not to torture!

But, doesn't that article say that it was actually sheer volume of 'on the ground' units that made the difference?

Indeed - though an attempt at positive spin may be put on it... it doesn't actually seem to SHOW any real advantage came from torture.

Yes, it did say that torture wasn't the sole reason, and highlighted the factors for the victory. And I'm not sure how you expect it to show the advantage, the fact is there is a historical concensus on the effectiveness of torture in the Algerian War of Independence. Pretending there isn't is to engage in historical revisionism.

Read the rest of the article. It actually shows all of the other costs that torture had. The third page also shows how working without torture is as effective as working with it and that the war was won with force not intelligence.
The reasons against torture should not be 'it doesn't work' or 'it has drawbacks', etc. The reason should be that torture is morally wrong. To use any other reason would suggest that torture would be morally correct to use if the other reasons were proven erroneous.

That said, I can sympathize with the authorities about torture in very extreme cases. It seems wrong, but if you had prisoner someone who knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was set to destroy an entire city, wouldn't you be morally negligent if you DIDN'T use every method at your disposal to extract that information?

That quote doesn't say what you say it says...

"The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria."

It positively affirms that brutal methods were used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture. I'm not sure how much more clear it can be.

Here is another Slate article on a movie based on the Battle of Algiers:

A new look at the Battle of Algiers (http://www.slate.com/id/2087628/)

Is the movie accurate?
Within broad limits. Ali was indeed the hero of the Casbah, the Muslim section of Algiers; as the film suggests, his death marked the end of the real battle for the city. The French did torture and murder their way to tactical victory.

The above quote is from, as the title says, the analysis of the historical accuracy of the movie. I've yet to see anyone who denies the significant impact of torture by the French in this case.

Because:

1. It's barbaric.

2. It's a breach of human rights; specifically written down under this (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) doohickey, article 5.

3. Due to the extra-legal nature of torture, there are no guarantees or protection for innocents who have been victims of it. If this is taken into consideration and due process is applied before torture is used (very unlikely), it remains nevertheless disgustingly barbaric as a punishment.

4. Sets a dangerous legal precedent. If the suspect is not caught with enough evidence to prosecute them, how can someone "know" that they are about to commit a crime and torture must be applied to stop it? Are we then to round up anyone who "might" commit a crime in the future?

5. Confessions made under duress might be misleading and hinder any investigations.

There.

One account of torture used by a government with successful results that virtually no one disputes is the French Battle of Algiers. It was quite effective. You could probably find information about it anywhere, but here's an article:

So really, its oversimplifying it to claim that torture doesn't work, or that we have consistent results of its failure. We don't have consistent results of its failure, as there are many historical accounts of torture working with dramatically positive results, even in recent history (Algiers was just in the 50s).
Mmh. And seeing how well-liked the French are in Algiers, I'd say you're on a crusade that will still be fought in a hundred year's.

And yet another article about the Battle of Algiers:

French lesson (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_02_02/article1.html)

The paras liquidated the Casbah rebels’ leadership in 1957. In Algeria, torture worked. What the film doesn’t show is that in France, though, the public started to lose the stomach for the “necessary consequences.” Alarmed that the politicians might throw away their fallen comrades’ sacrifices, the paratroopers threatened to drop on Paris in May 1958 unless Gen. Charles de Gaulle became France’s strong man.

Now keep in mind, each article I've been citing is against torture. Yet, they admit that it worked in this instance.

Mmh. And seeing how well-liked the French are in Algiers, I'd say you're on a crusade that will still be fought in a hundred year's.

Well, that was one of the huge problems with French tactics. No one is arguing that they were good or should be used. I was just pointing out the fact that there are large-scale historical examples of torture working. The black and white argument that torture doesn't work because people lie when tortured is simply inconsistent with history. Sometimes they do lie, yes, but sometimes they don't. And the latter occurs enough where torture has been demonstrated to be effective in large scale war scenarios, like the Battle of Algiers.

And yet another article about the Battle of Algiers:

French lesson (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_02_02/article1.html)



Now keep in mind, each article I've been citing is against torture. Yet, they admit that it worked in this instance.
Seeing how "stable" Algeria is today, I highly doubt that those "successes" back then really made a difference.

Well, that was one of the huge problems with French tactics. No one is arguing that they were good or should be used. I was just pointing out the fact that there are large-scale historical examples of torture working. The black and white argument that torture doesn't work because people lie when tortured is simply inconsistent with history. Sometimes they do lie, yes, but sometimes they don't. And the latter occurs enough where torture has been demonstrated to be effective in large scale war scenarios, like the Battle of Algiers.
You know, I don't even want to discuss the possibility whether torture might or might not work. Question is, should it be used in a "civilised" society, even though there aren't any other alternatives.

I say no, because it is against those things I believe in, would want to stand for - and if that means that I can't save people from being attacked, some city to be bombed, innocents being killed - then so be it.

I'm not going to sink to the same levels that the alleged wrong-doers and torture victims/terrorists are on.

> "Tourture doesn't work"

that is just too convenient - the world generally doesn’t work in such a way as to make our moral choices that easy.
It is possible to tell with various techniques, generally speaking, between the truth and a lie (from studying their behavior when they say it to getting them to contradict themselves) So you should be able to make it is that telling the truth is the easiest way our of the torture.

> so why did the torture continue?

Usually when I hear stories of torture I think - what were they trying to achieve by continuing with their strategies? I think, normally, torture seems to be stress relief for the torturer - they are unleashing their frustrations, they don't really know or care much about strategy / psychology. Torture is at it's worst as a semi illegitimate tool of the military.

"The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria."

It positively affirms that brutal methods were used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture. I'm not sure how much more clear it can be.

Yes. Brutal methods were used, and were instrumental in winning, perhaps.

Torture is one of the 'brutal methods'. That doesn't mean torture was effective in winning.

BM = WBA. BM = T+O. Given this information - is it possible to calculate a value for T?

(In case you hadn't figured it... the answer is 'no', there is not enough information. The example uses the variables "Brutal Methods" (BM); "Winning Battle of Algiers" (WBA); "Torture" (T) and "Other" methods (O)).

Here is another Slate article on a movie based on the Battle of Algiers:

A new look at the Battle of Algiers (http://www.slate.com/id/2087628/)

The above quote is from, as the title says, the analysis of the historical accuracy of the movie. I've yet to see anyone who denies the significant impact of torture by the French in this case.

Again - that quote doesn't say what you say it says... it makes NO claims about the importance of the torture... it just says that it was in the repertoire. 'Murder' is arguably the more salient factor... and not that unusual in war.

And yet another article about the Battle of Algiers:

French lesson (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_02_02/article1.html)

Now keep in mind, each article I've been citing is against torture. Yet, they admit that it worked in this instance.

Ah - the expertise of the film critic for "The American Conservative". Doubtless, his insight into the Battle of Algiers must be beyond reproach?

No - wait - he's talking about a movie... and he's CERTAINLY not describing an 'anti-torture' posture, as you claim.

I really really don't like saying this, but in some cases torture might be nessecary.
However, that is only if it's certain the person has information you need; if it is vital to save a number of other people, and if you have ways to check if the person isn't lying.


However, in about 99,999% of the cases (or more), torture should be avoided.
Furthermore, anyone using it should not pretend to justify it.
Doing so makes you worse than the "bad guys" you are torturing. Not 'as bad'. Worse, because you're a hypocrite as well.

All in all, torture is a very bad way to gather information and should be avoided at all costs.

Since western beliefs include that all humans are worth the same, then it follows that torturing someone else matters as much as if it was you or someone close to you, on a moral level.

Ergo: There's a very simple test to do in these controversial issues.
Apply the situation to yourself and your loved ones.
Can you still accept it happened to you and/or yours? Then by all means support it.
If not, re-think your position.

Well, that was one of the huge problems with French tactics. No one is arguing that they were good or should be used. I was just pointing out the fact that there are large-scale historical examples of torture working. The black and white argument that torture doesn't work because people lie when tortured is simply inconsistent with history. Sometimes they do lie, yes, but sometimes they don't. And the latter occurs enough where torture has been demonstrated to be effective in large scale war scenarios, like the Battle of Algiers.

WHich point has not been demonstrated.

The sources you have provided have supported the idea that torture was USED, and that it was BRUTAL... and that other brutal methods were used.. and, even, that one movie critic thinks torture worked.

What has been more forthcoming, I think, is that brutal application of massive force pacified Algiers, briefly. Torture seems ultimately irrelevent.

Yes. Brutal methods were used, and were instrumental in winning, perhaps.

Torture is one of the 'brutal methods'. That doesn't mean torture was effective in winning.

BM = WBA. BM = T+O. Given this information - is it possible to calculate a value for T?

(In case you hadn't figured it... the answer is 'no', there is not enough information. The example uses the variables "Brutal Methods" (BM); "Winning Battle of Algiers" (WBA); "Torture" (T) and "Other" methods (O)).

""The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria.""

The word "including" is a modifier of brutal methods. It makes torture a necessary cause regarding brutal methods in this sentence. Because its a necessary cause, its becomes illogical to attempt to separate the two like you've done here.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]WHich point has not been demonstrated.

The sources you have provided have supported the idea that torture was USED, and that it was BRUTAL... and that other brutal methods were used.. and, even, that one movie critic thinks torture worked./QUOTE]

Well, the three articles I posted stated that it worked, as did the wikipedia article. I can find a dozen more if you like. As I wrote, to pretend that torture wasn't effective during the Battle of Algiers is historical revisionism.

because i hate the police, and people like me would fight back. and also thats just makes it ok the have police brutalty

More on the Battle of Algiers from the New York Times:

What does the pentagon see in the Battle of Algiers? (http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyes_xtras/battle_times.html)

Mr. Pontecorvo, who was a member of the Italian Communist Party, obviously felt the French had gone much too far by adopting policies of torture, brutal intimidatio and outright killings. Though their use of force led to the triumph over La Pointe, it also provoked political scandals in France, discredited the French Army and traumatized French political life for decades, while inspiring support for the nationalists among Algerians and in much of the world. It was this tactical tradeoff that lies at the heart of the film and presumably makes it relevant for Pentagon study and discussion.

Looks like this article admits that the french tactics which included torture led to the victory as well.

Because when a person says "I don't know" they could be lying or telling the truth and there is no way the torturer will accept it as the truth.

Wait a minute guys, haven't you watched 24? What if Jack didn't torture (break off some fingers) that American guy working with Ali? Then they would have gotten no where and LA would have been nuked.
I think somebody needs to have their tv taken away.

And here we have a book review by Publisher's Weekly regarding the book My Battle of Algiers : A Memoir:

Amazon.com: My Battle of Algiers : A Memoir (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060852240/103-8930316-2787066?v=glance&n=283155)

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In this candid, powerfully wrought memoir, Pulitzer Prize–winner Morgan (Churchill; Maugham; Reds) recalls his service as a young officer in France's bitter war in Algeria. A native of France, Morgan was working as a journalist in the United States in the mid-1950s when he received his conscription notice. Following a brief posting to a regiment in the Algerian countryside, he was transferred to Algiers, arriving just in time for the Battle of Algiers, which featured history's first "systematic use of urban terrorism." Placing crude bombs at bus stops, cafes and soccer stadiums, the rebels hoped to "create a climate of insecurity" among the French and to invite reprisals that would turn "moderate Arabs into rebels." The French responded by using torture to extract intelligence. "Torture produced immediate results," Morgan notes, and the French slowly dismantled the urban terrorist cells. By the end of 1957, France had won the battle, but it would lose the war. The country's tactics sparked an antiwar movement in France, and the war continued to rage in the Algerian countryside until the French conceded defeat in 1962. Morgan recalls this fierce history with an intensity that belies that it happened a half century ago. Anyone interested in the origins of modern terrorist tactics will benefit from his recollections. (Feb.)

And the Washington Post's review of the same book:

In his preface -- a brief, tediously obvious and unnecessary attempt to connect the dots between the battle of Algiers and the current American conflagration in Iraq -- he makes a distinction between torture that works and torture that doesn't. "It took only the 6,000 paras [paratroopers] of General Jacques Massu's 10th Division to win the Battle of Algiers, thanks to the systematic use of torture," Morgan argues. What the "untrained" and "clumsy" Americans did with torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib was not systematic; rather, the torture was "used in sensationalized but ineffective ways." This book is by no means a defense of torture, which Morgan insists "dehumanizes the victim and corrupts the tormenter." But by the end, his claim that torture won the fight against the urban insurgents of Algeria's capital is disturbingly persuasive.

More on the Battle of Algiers from the New York Times:

What does the pentagon see in the Battle of Algiers? (http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyes_xtras/battle_times.html)

Quote:
Mr. Pontecorvo, who was a member of the Italian Communist Party, obviously felt the French had gone much too far by adopting policies of torture, brutal intimidatio and outright killings. Though their use of force led to the triumph over La Pointe, it also provoked political scandals in France, discredited the French Army and traumatized French political life for decades, while inspiring support for the nationalists among Algerians and in much of the world. It was this tactical tradeoff that lies at the heart of the film and presumably makes it relevant for Pentagon study and discussion.


Looks like this article admits that the french tactics which included torture led to the victory as well.
Considering the long term effects, it was a tactic victory but a strategic loss.

aight i think were good now with all the articles..not like any1 is reading them

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

1. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

2. The information obtained under torture is unreliable, at best.

Here, look at this:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

You can learn a lot from the experiment.

""The publicity given to the often brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture, created doubt in France about its role in Algeria.""

The word "including" is a modifier of brutal methods. It makes torture a necessary cause regarding brutal methods in this sentence. Because its a necessary cause, its becomes illogical to attempt to separate the two like you've done here.

Actually - no... it modifies 'brutal methods', by alluding to the fact that torture (often considered about THE most 'brutal' of methods) was part of the French repertoire. It is more about condemnation of French tactics, than an estimation of the importance of any given approach.

As you can see - the piece is ACTUALLY talking about 'doubt in France', and the 'brutal methods' of the battle (especially torture) are what is contributing.

It isn't saying brutal methods WON the battle... it is saying that brutal methods which were used to win, offended the French public.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]WHich point has not been demonstrated.

The sources you have provided have supported the idea that torture was USED, and that it was BRUTAL... and that other brutal methods were used.. and, even, that one movie critic thinks torture worked./QUOTE]

Well, the three articles I posted stated that it worked, as did the wikipedia article. I can find a dozen more if you like. As I wrote, to pretend that torture wasn't effective during the Battle of Algiers is historical revisionism.

On each occassion, I have either shown that the articles do NOT say what you claim... or I have questioned the connection.. e.g. the movie-critic is NOT an expert witness.

More on the Battle of Algiers from the New York Times:

What does the pentagon see in the Battle of Algiers? (http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyes_xtras/battle_times.html)



Looks like this article admits that the french tactics which included torture led to the victory as well.

No - it says "use of force". Again, torture is mentioned because of it's importance to the French people, and how THEY reacted.

Actually - no... it modifies 'brutal methods', by alluding to the fact that torture (often considered about THE most 'brutal' of methods) was part of the French repertoire. It is more about condemnation of French tactics, than an estimation of the importance of any given approach.

Well yes, it is about the condemnation of French tactics. Thats the main topic of the statement. However, it uses supporting facts within itself. Such as that brutal methods were used to win.

It isn't saying brutal methods WON the battle... it is saying that brutal methods which were used to win, offended the French public.

It contains what is known as a 'stand alone' statement within it. This is it:

"brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers"

Then, it uses the modifying word "including", which means that the following statement is a necessary condition. The former can't logically exist without it.

"brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture"

It clearly is saying brutal methods won the battle, and a necessary condition of these, in this statement, is torture. "Brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers" is about as clear as it can be.

And here we have a book review by Publisher's Weekly regarding the book My Battle of Algiers : A Memoir:

Amazon.com: My Battle of Algiers : A Memoir (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060852240/103-8930316-2787066?v=glance&n=283155)



And the Washington Post's review of the same book:

Okay - FIRST source you have cited that has actually claimed what you say.

Of course - whether or not a 'young officer' has the necessary information to MAKE such a judgement, is a different matter.

But - this is the sort of evidence the US should be looking at now... minor victories, a disenchanted public back home... and the conflict finally ending in a defeat for the French... in circumstances remarkably like the ones we see every day on our news.

No - it says "use of force". Again, torture is mentioned because of it's importance to the French people, and how THEY reacted.

Once again, logically, torture is a necessary condition for the "use of force" in this topic.

Remember, logic is a science. Things like necessary conditions are facts.

Okay - FIRST source you have cited that has actually claimed what you say.

Of course - whether or not a 'young officer' has the necessary information to MAKE such a judgement, is a different matter.

But - this is the sort of evidence the US should be looking at now... minor victories, a disenchanted public back home... and the conflict finally ending in a defeat for the French... in circumstances remarkably like the ones we see every day on our news.

Well, we have the same conclusions from the French generals as well, such as Paul Aussaresses:

Veteran Torturer: "No Mercy, No Regrets" (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/vogel120306.html)

Aussaresses's narrative of the campaign of torture and death against the Algerian insurgency is specific and succinct:

While torture was widely used in Algeria, it didn't mean that it was an ordinary occurrence. We didn't discuss it among officers and an interrogation didn't necessarily end up in torture. Some prisoners started talking very easily. Others only needed some roughing up. It was only when a prisoner refused to talk or denied the obvious that torture was used. We did everything we possibly could to avoid having the youngest soldiers bloody their hands and many would have been unable to see it through anyway. The methods I used were always the same: beatings, electric shocks, and, in particular, water torture, which was the most dangerous technique for the prisoner.

The torture worked more often than not: "It never lasted for more than one hour and the suspects would speak in hope of saving their own lives. They would therefore either talk quickly or never." In the same vein, Aussaresses relates several summary executions.

Even today, Aussaresses has not been apologetic for what he did. He believes it was necessary and that it produced positive results.

Well yes, it is about the condemnation of French tactics. Thats the main topic of the statement. However, it uses supporting facts within itself. Such as that brutal methods were used to win.



It contains what is known as a 'stand alone' statement within it. This is it:

"brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers"

Then, it uses the modifying word "including", which means that the following statement is a necessary condition. The former can't logically exist without it.

"brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture"

It clearly is saying brutal methods won the battle, and a necessary condition of these, in this statement, is torture. "Brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers" is about as clear as it can be.

No - you are trying to make something out of it that isn't there.

The 'widespread use of torture' is a commentary. Torture is only one of the methods... and it says 'including', not 'especially' or 'specifically'... so the torture is no MORE 'important' to the methodology than any other.

What it IS more important to - is the public opinion. Aggressive fighting is brutal, but doesn't stir up the kind of upset that torture does... which is why it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned.

Again - it doesn't ACTUALLY say that the 'brutal methods' won the battle... it says the brutal methods that were used to win the battle. It isn't exclusive.

Once again, logically, torture is a necessary condition for the "use of force" in this topic.

Remember, logic is a science. Things like necessary conditions are facts.

And 'facts' are not synonymous with 'truth'.

Also - again - torture is NOT a necessary condition, it is a comment.

No - you are trying to make something out of it that isn't there.

I'm using the science of logic. Its a logical fact that 'including' is an modifier for necessary causes.

The 'widespread use of torture' is a commentary. Torture is only one of the methods... and it says 'including', not 'especially' or 'specifically'... so the torture is no MORE 'important' to the methodology than any other.

Not according to the science of logic. Again, including is a modifier for necessary causes. If something says X including Y, then X cannot exist without Y.

Thus, when the statement reads "brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture", torture is a necessary condition for brutal methods. Every time 'brutal methods' is used in the topic, it must include torture. According to logic, anyway.

Again - it doesn't ACTUALLY say that the 'brutal methods' won the battle... it says the brutal methods that were used to win the battle. It isn't exclusive.

Well, it doesnt say that brutal methods alone won the battle. However, the statement "brutal methods were used to win the battle" and "brutal methods won the battle" are identical, because the latter is ambiguous. "used to win" and "won" are both different past tense forms of the same word - win.

Well, we have the same conclusions from the French generals as well, such as Paul Aussaresses:

Veteran Torturer: "No Mercy, No Regrets" (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/vogel120306.html)

Even today, Aussaresses has not been apologetic for what he did. He believes it was necessary and that it produced positive results.

Yes. HE believes that.

That doesn't make it so.

Also: "The torture worked more often than not: "It never lasted for more than one hour and the suspects would speak in hope of saving their own lives. They would therefore either talk quickly or never." In the same vein, Aussaresses relates several summary executions".

The 'torture worked', he says. How objective is this? What he says later "the suspects would speak in hope of saving their own lives" merely suggets that torture got answers... it neither answers to the VALIDITY of the answers, or how they were applied (if at all) in the actual theatre.

But here, also - we see more of the 'brutal methods'... "summary executions". Not only were they torturing prisoners, they were also executing prisoners. It's not a particularly high moral highground.

And 'facts' are not synonymous with 'truth'.

Also - again - torture is NOT a necessary condition, it is a comment.

Well, in the educated world we tend to acknowledge logical laws like this as truth, in the same fashion that we acknowledge the law of gravity as truth or the fact that 2+2=4 as truth.

Logic dictates that it is a necessary condition. If you want to reject logic, thats fine I guess. But there is no way to get around the logical fact that it is a necessary condition any more than we can get around the mathematical fact that 2+2=4.

Yes. HE believes that.

That doesn't make it so.

As I wrote before, there is virtually a historical concensus on the issue. I don't think anyone familiar with the issue rejects the fact that torture was insturmental to winning the Battle of Algiers.

I'm using the science of logic. Its a logical fact that 'including' is an modifier for necessary causes.

Not according to the science of logic. Again, including is a modifier for necessary causes. If something says X including Y, then X cannot exist without Y.

Thus, when the statement reads "brutal methods used by the army to win the Battle of Algiers, including the widespread use of torture", torture is a necessary condition for brutal methods. Every time 'brutal methods' is used in the topic, it must include torture. According to logic, anyway.


Utter rubbish.

For "Breakfast" this morning, I had a "McDonalds Breakfast Meal", including a "Chicken Biscuit".

Does "Breakfast" logically contain Chicken Biscuit?

Does "Breakfast" logically come from "McDonalds"?

Does a "McDonalds Breakfast Meal" even logically include a "Chicken Biscuit"?


You are confusing inclusion with being CONDITIONAL.

There were brutal techniques used. They included torture. Were ALL brutal methods used inclusive of torture? Was torture used EVERY TIME brutal methods were used?

Your dominoes of your logic fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.


Well, it doesnt say that brutal methods alone won the battle. However, the statement "brutal methods were used to win the battle" and "brutal methods won the battle" are identical, because the latter is ambiguous. "used to win" and "won" are both different past tense forms of the same word - win.

No - they really are not... 'brutal methods were used to win the war' implies that brutal methods were not the ONLY cause of victory. 'Brutal methods WON the war' implies that brutal methods WERE the only cause of victory.

Well, in the educated world we tend to acknowledge logical laws like this as truth, in the same fashion that we acknowledge the law of gravity as truth or the fact that 2+2=4 as truth.

Logic dictates that it is a necessary condition. If you want to reject logic, thats fine I guess. But there is no way to get around the logical fact that it is a necessary condition any more than we can get around the mathematical fact that 2+2=4.

Gravity is a theory. It is folly to assume ANY theory is any more than a best guess.

I quibble your assertion. It is NOT a 'necessary condition', logically, or in any other way.

Perhaps it is not I that is abandoning the safety of logic?

As I wrote before, there is virtually a historical concensus on the issue. I don't think anyone familiar with the issue rejects the fact that torture was insturmental to winning the Battle of Algiers.

And, I don't think that THAT means that torture works, worked then, or had any value then.

Nor do I think that you have presented any evidence that even suggests as much.

Dude111 you aren't American by any chance are you?


Well, realistically torture can never work. There is no way of making it guarantee a correct answer and if anything, is more likely to provide false information as the victim will say anything in order to end the pain.

I can see America using torture though, it isn't exactly as though it recognizes human rights anyway...

torture is gud it gets u wot u want and it teaches ppl not to mess wit u:sniper:

bad things start wen u torture yur own ppl

torture is gud it gets u wot u want and it teaches ppl not to mess wit u:sniper:

bad things start wen u torture yur own ppl

Utter rubbish.

For "Breakfast" this morning, I had a "McDonalds Breakfast Meal", including a "Chicken Biscuit".

Does "Breakfast" logically contain Chicken Biscuit?

Does "Breakfast" logically come from "McDonalds"?

Does a "McDonalds Breakfast Meal" even logically include a "Chicken Biscuit"?

The breakfast you had logically contains the chicken sandwich and logically comes from McDonalds. That much is a logical fact - they are necessary conditions of your breakfast.

You're going off track when you attempt to single out 'breakfast' outside of its context. We're talking about the breakfast you had this morning. Just like in the article, they were talking about the brutal tactics used in the Battle of Algiers.

There were brutal techniques used. They included torture. Were ALL brutal methods used inclusive of torture? Was torture used EVERY TIME brutal methods were used?

"Every time" and "all" are non sequiturs here. The fact is, "brutal methods" logically included torture, due to the logical principle of necessary conditions.

No - they really are not... 'brutal methods were used to win the war' implies that brutal methods were not the ONLY cause of victory. 'Brutal methods WON the war' implies that brutal methods WERE the only cause of victory.

'Brutal methods were used to win the war" is ambiguous, as is "brutal methods won the war." Neither imply anything. There are no words of implication in either. You're just reading your interpretation into them.

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Three reasons. 1) It infringes on the rights of the people tortured, 2) it is ineffective, and 3) your justification for torture is based on an absurdity.

I don't think the first point is at dispute at all; both sides agree with the assertion that torture fundamentally violates rights. What is at issue, however, is whether or not the violation of those rights is justified in case of threat to the interests of the nation.

The simple answer is that torture is never in the interests of the nation, therefore it is not justified. I say this first because torture usually produces inaccurate intelligence, and second because the costs of torturing suspects wildly outweighs any possible benefit. In the first case, we know that the accuracy of any intelligence gained by torture is usually extremely low. This is especially true if the torture occurs in a very short amount of time. To put it very simply, if you use pliars and a blowtorch on a person who does not know about the terrorist incident you are asking him about, he will nevertheless still give you faulty intelligence about it just to stop you. If you use pliars and a blowtorch on a person who does know about the terrorist threat you are talking about, he is very likely to still give you bad intelligence, because he's stalling for time so his fellow terrorists can implement their plan. I think John McCain put it best when he was describing his torture that, when asked who the fellow members of his squadron were, he gave names under duress, but he gave the names not of his squadron-mates but the starting lineup of the 1964 Mets. So if you are really trying to stop a proverbial "ticking time bomb" scenario, torture isn't likely to get you anywhere even if you manage to get a guy who knows about it.

The second reason why it doesn't work is because the costs of torture extend far beyond a few shattered lives. They ruin your credibility in the entire region that the torturees come from. If you want to know where we lost any possible support among Sunnis in Iraq, for instance, you only have to know two words: Abu Ghraib. That incident alone cost us not just a few hundred people tortured; it convinced the general Iraqi on the street that America could not be trusted to look out for their interests, and without that trust any possible victory becomes virtually impossible. This is not unique: Guantanamo has made our efforts to democratize the Middle East virtually impossible and even counterproductive, with Iran voting in militant Shias and Palestine voting in Hamas. It has undermined allies in the region. It has erased the voice of moderate Muslims from the region. It has, in short, made our long-term strategic goals in the region impossible and made possible a Middle East united by opposition to us.

Finally, I would like to go further and point out that the ticking time bomb scenario, usually given to justify torture, is really an absurdity. I say it is an absurdity because it supposes you to presume that you know that there is a bomb, that you know when it is going off, that you know that the person responsible is currently sitting in the chair in front of you, that you know that anything less than torture is not going to work, that you have enough psychological information about the person to know he will not lie to you about the location of the bomb and will not stall for time, yet for all that, that you do not also know where the bomb will be. The idea that you will have that kind of detail in your knowledge of the situation, but still not know where the bomb is located is, as I said, an absurdity. Nevertheless, if you don't have that level of detail, then you must also know that torture might well be completely inneffectual or even that you might have the wrong guy.

Gravity is a theory. It is folly to assume ANY theory is any more than a best guess.

I quibble your assertion. It is NOT a 'necessary condition', logically, or in any other way.

For one, gravity is a law. See Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation)

Secondly, it is also a law in propositional logic that any statement that contains 'including' is a conditional, and that the conditional is a necessary condition. If I were to break the statement down into symbolic form, it would look like this:

B <horseshoe> T

Again, that much is a logical fact.

So far, all you've done is say things like this in response:

"Also - again - torture is NOT a necessary condition, it is a comment."

This demonstrates to me that you aren't actually familiar with the context of logic. There is no logical principle called a "comment" I'm afraid.

The breakfast you had logically contains the chicken sandwich and logically comes from McDonalds. That much is a logical fact - they are necessary conditions of your breakfast.

You're going off track when you attempt to single out 'breakfast' outside of its context. We're talking about the breakfast you had this morning. Just like in the article, they were talking about the brutal tactics used in the Battle of Algiers.


Nope - the "Breakfast" I had this morning, is just a continuation of a trend towards breakfast. But - this morning, it didn't 'include' all the details of yesterday, and the day before wasn't even from McDonalds.

All still "breakfast", though.

It's just a thought experiment - to show that your 'conditions' are not as conditional as you seem to think.


"Every time" and "all" are non sequiturs here. The fact is, "brutal methods" logically included torture, due to the logical principle of necessary conditions.


Not at all. If Unit A employs 'brutal methods' in Situation A... does it include torture?

There is too little information to know, if any particular case matches... thus it is not a 'universal' condition.

For one, gravity is a law. See Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation)

Secondly, it is also a law in propositional logic that any statement that contains 'including' is a conditional, and that the conditional is a necessary condition. If I were to break the statement down into symbolic form, it would look like this:

B <horseshoe> T

Again, that much is a logical fact.

So far, all you've done is say things like this in response:

"Also - again - torture is NOT a necessary condition, it is a comment."

This demonstrates to me that you aren't actually familiar with the context of logic. There is no logical principle called a "comment" I'm afraid.

First - 'Law' means no more than theory.

Second - I ddn't say 'comment' was a logical principle... I'm saying that it IS just a comment... it is flavour text. It is a REM statement on the subroutine of the text.

Third: The type of condition we are seeing here is 'if'... not 'iff'.

Nope - the "Breakfast" I had this morning, is just a continuation of a trend towards breakfast. But - this morning, it didn't 'include' all the details of yesterday, and the day before wasn't even from McDonalds.

All still "breakfast", though.

It's just a thought experiment - to show that your 'conditions' are not as conditional as you seem to think.

I'm just following textbook logic. Talking about a "continuation of a trend" doesn't change the fact that we are talking only about the breakfast you had this morning.

And a necessary condition of that breakfast was the chicken sandwich, etc. The fact that you had a chicken sandwich with that breakfast, and that the breakfast would not be the same without that chicken sandwich, is the empirical basis for the logical principle of necessary causes.

Not at all. If Unit A employs 'brutal methods' in Situation A... does it include torture?

There is too little information to know, if any particular case matches... thus it is not a 'universal' condition.

You're making up terms again. There is no such thing as a "universal condition" in propositional logic.

Nor are we talking about Unit A or Situation A. Again, these are non sequiturs.

We're talking about only what is in the sentence. And torture is a necessary condition of brutal methods in that sentence. We can't know if torture was used every time a method was brutal - that is why it is a necessary condition, and not a necessary and sufficient condition. The former is represented in symbolic logic with a horseshoe, as I explained, and the latter is represented by the triplebar.

I wont dispute with you that it isn't a necessary and sufficient condition, it isn't, which is what you're alluding at. Its just a necessary condition.

well if someone murders someone i think they should be hung.

no need for torture, if someone does anything like let's say???? Rape then they should be Hung. Buglary life imprisonment! any form of life destroying crime mmmmm Life prisonment or Hung!

no human rights for them kinda people! i really dont think the person who was being brutuly murdered woudl've to the person "hey think of my human rights ?" ??? simple if They take a life away then there life should be taken away!

You're making up terms again. There is no such thing as a "universal condition" in propositional logic.

Nor are we talking about Unit A or Situation A. Again, these are non sequiturs.

We're talking about only what is in the sentence. And torture is a necessary condition of brutal methods in that sentence. We can't know if torture was used every time a method was brutal - that is why it is a necessary condition, and not a necessary and sufficient condition. The former is represented in symbolic logic with a horseshoe, as I explained, and the latter is represented by the triplebar.

I wont dispute with you that it isn't a necessary and sufficient condition, it isn't, which is what you're alluding at. Its just a necessary condition.

No - I'm not making up terms... I believe you are misapplying the 'logic'... you are claiming that something is so, when it isn't.

Your logic is always going to fall foul, then, because your assumption is flawed.

It is a necessary condition to the whole statement, but not to the specific clause. Yes - torture WAS used in the battle... and EVERY occassion of THAT battle (one occassion) MUST contain the condition... but torture is NOT a necessary condition to the clause of 'brutal methods'.

Similarly... not EVERY 'method' used was 'brutal'... but the battle in every iteration (still, only one) MUST include brutal methods alongside the non-brutal... and one of them MUST be torture.

True in macro, but not in micro.

Every government needs to get info, right? And sometimes, governments need it urgently. I think that if there is info that can save lives of civilians, then the people who have the info should be tortured until they tell it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Well, I hope if you're ever wrongly accused of some life threatening crime, when the feds have the car battery terminals wired to your testicles, you sit there and say "Oh well, it's for the greater good, no harm no foul"...