Torture - necessary for national security or a gross violation of human rights?

So you're saying that your own sources are not credible?This is just another open stunt at hypocrisy. First, you give the links implying they represent your point of view and when I quote excerpts that clearly confirm my points from the links to the sources that you gave, you reject them as not being reliable. Talk about serving one's interests!.... I'm not surprised since you attempt at confusing psychology with the study of torture gave you away.

No I don't agree it's a slippery slope. The CIA had been notified about specific things they could do, and thinks they couldn't do. It was tightly regulated. For example, standing up in uncomfortable positions could not be longer than 4 hours I think if memory serves me right or maybe 8.

Are you sure you know your own point?

Shall we clarify this? You said that torture was found "to be ineffective and produced less than satisfactory results". I disputed this. You repeated yourself, then you provided sources. Then you refused to read the thread, then you refused to read the thread again, finally you read the sources I linked to and declared that 'torture's immoral'.

So, again, we're back with you being unable to string a coherent thought together; does torture work? You say definitely no, I say maybe, you say it's immoral - good work on keeping up there!


Bye then.

It`s useless because people will scream anything if their toes are being hacked off or their hair is being pulled off by a machine.

Which is in fact so astonishingly close to saying torture was found "to be ineffective and produced less than satisfactory results" that I'm slightly bemused that you even brought up that particular quote.

I'll apologise for loosing my temper but I do find babelfish translations really hard to read.
That only works if you believe that 'use of force' is synonymous with torture which isn't the case - there are plenty of ways to torture someone without laying a finger on them.

Who notified the CIA and why was this taken as gospel? 100 years ago forms of torture that would be thought barbaric today were allowed and "well regulated". It could be proven inn a few years that these techniques caused long term physcological damage. What would you say then?

Plus. What if stress techniques werent working? Would there be a situation where you would resort to pulling fingernails and electrifying genitals?

It will always work, worked on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Prison causes long term psychological damage too, should it be banned aswell? DNA cleared briton Sean Hodgson who spent nearly 30 years in prison and now he is having trouble adapting to life outside.

RTFT.


Exectutionists? Bore on...

Torture or "stress positions" including waterboarding robs the individual of all control of his or her body and mind. It's quite possible to maintain one's human dignity and selfhood while imprisoned; not so with torture

I think that might form the basis for an interesting definition. But it's going to depend on how you define dignity and whether anything that breaches is is 'torture' - might removing a muslim woman's hijab be torture? Or would publishing a criminal's name count?

I see what you mean. But i think pain and "stress" have a lot to do with it. There is something very animalistic about receiveing pain wouldn't you say? I think the pain factor is enough to distinguish between simply being ashamed and being reduced to nothing.

Presumably in the same way that people check all the rest of intelligence gathered?

Lie detection I guess.

Well the rest of the intelligence gathered is less likely to need checking than the information gained from torture - because torture is an extremely unreliable source of accurate information. The incentive is for the person being tortured is to tell the torturer what they want to hear rather than the truth. Presumably, other sources of intelligence are going to be more reliable to begin with.

Why do you think data obtained from interrogation is going to be less accurate than data obtained from any other interrogation?

Did it not occur to you that anyone routinely using interrogation of any sort is well aware of the limitations of it and has probably spent more time than you or I working out ways to reduce or eliminate them.

Well if they have worked out ways to reduce inaccuracy, then I'd be interested to know what these ways are, rather than merely trusting the suggestion, just because they're "experts" and have spent a lot of time doing this.