If you assume that people will lie when they're tortured, you have to assume that they'll lie when they're not, so why bother asking terrorist suspects anything - lets let them get on with it?

Oh, come on, that's an incredibly stupid argument. 'If we catch someone who might be trying to blow up an aeroplane, we can't get him to tell us more about his dastardly plot. Therefore we should let him blow up the plane.'.

What I'm saying is not that interrogation of suspects is worthless (though even if it was, your argument would of course be false). However, torturing suspects doesn't seem likely to be more valuable than other less horrible methods.

Reply 83

Axes

[QUOTE="missygeorgia;28723191"]

Original post by missygeorgia

And these 'bastions of democracy' also torture innocent people. See guantanamo bay, in which both the US and the UK were involved in torture of people who have now been released without even being charged.

Yes. Bastions of democracy allso kill innocent people, incarcarate innocent people. Cops accidentally kill civilians. By mistake. No one brought into guantanamo is brought in because he is thought as innocent, and innocents are tortured too. It's wrong, no doubt about it, but I wasn't arguing about whether it was good or bad from a normative standpoint, but rather does it bring results? From its use by even the most liberal democracies, by agencies with decades of information extraction experience, they must have some reason. I wonder what it could be.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 84

missygeorgia

Original post by Renal

Don't they? Who defines what is and isn't torture?

The UN, for one.

Original post by Renal

No, there aren't.

A search of academic papers just on JSTOR with 'torture' in the title gives me 431 results. Ta da.

Reply 85

missygeorgia

Original post by Renal

Which doesn't mean innocent, see Control Orders.

Innocent til proven guilty. If they didn't even have the grounds to charge these people, let alone prove them guilty in a trial, these people are legally innocent.

Reply 86

In2deep

Original post by Axes

So, the mere stamp of 'torture' would make you oppose something without checking on what it actually is? Torture is a subjective term, and I would support or oppose something based on what it actually entails. You would agree with me that depriving someone of sleep or making him listen to music 24/7 is not the same as shocking him with electricity or inserting glass into his rectum?

No I clearly made a distinction.

I said there must be a a reason for something to be classed as "torture", but if it is then oppose it.

Reply 87

Renal

Original post by missygeorgia

The UN, for one.

Where? To the best of my knowledge not even they have actually decided definitively what is and what isn't torture. I am of course happy to be corrected, if you can find this list.

A search of academic papers just on JSTOR with 'torture' in the title gives me 431 results. Ta da.

Ta da indeed. I can read hundreds of articles about the physical and psychological effects of trauma, but I can find none of these 431 articles that you claim prove that torture does not work.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 88

BrokenWarrior92

Original post by adam_zed

I read that in Guantanamo Bay, suspects would be forced to listen to artists like Britney Spears over and over again LOL no-one deserves that!

The ultimate torture...but if that doesn't work, it'll move on to the next level: Justin Bieber.

Reply 89

Renal

Original post by missygeorgia

Innocent til proven guilty. If they didn't even have the grounds to charge these people, let alone prove them guilty in a trial, these people are legally innocent.

Read up on Control Orders and get back to me.

Reply 90

Renal

Original post by dring

I can't think of anything that would actually definitely work. And you'd want to rely on it...

I don't believe anyone in the intelligence business, ever, relies on a single source - be it documentary, electronic or human.

You'll note that this is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.

What I'm saying is not that interrogation of suspects is worthless (though even if it was, your argument would of course be false). However, torturing suspects doesn't seem likely to be more valuable than other less horrible methods.

Which is what a lot of people have said, but still nobody has provided the remotest shred of proof.

Reply 91

Panda Bear

Only if you can prove the person is holding information. But I guess that's quite hard. So no, I don't think they should be tortured.

Reply 92

missygeorgia

Original post by Renal

Where? To the best of my knowledge not even they have actually decided definitively what is and what isn't torture.

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm

"... any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Original post by Renal

Ta indeed. I can read hundreds of articles about the physical and psychological effects of trauma, but I can find none of these 431 articles that you claim prove that torture does not work.

except that's obviously not what you asked for. see:

there's been plenty of academic research into torture. People do PHDs in this sort of thing.

you

I've seen two academic papers, one Restricted and one Secret. What have you seen?

You've gotten confused about what we were discussing.

that you claim prove that torture does not work.

Yeah? When did I claim that?

Reply 93

CookieDoughLove

Yes. They are all ********s who should have been butchered upon conception.

They kill INNOCENT people. They shouldn't have any rights at all in this world.

Reply 94

missygeorgia

Original post by Renal

Read up on Control Orders and get back to me.

No thanks. I very much doubt they'll prove to me that it's guilty until proven innocent.

Reply 95

Renal

Original post by missygeorgia

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htmWhich is all rather meaningless since the last sentence excuses acts performed by the state in the interests of law and order. What is more, plenty of what we don't consider torture is can easily be considered to cause physical or mental suffering.

Reply 96

User414413

Original post by missygeorgia

You've gotten confused about what we were discussing.

Seems like you're the one who is confused. Axes, stated:

"Academic research tests on 'torture' have never, to the best of my knowledge, been conducted."

That's is where you and Renal little debate starts. But, Axes wasn't referring to any sort of torture rather a research on whether or not torture works this can be seen by his debate with In2deep in which they are arguing about whether or not light psychological torture works. Don't randomly accuse people of being confused.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 97

dring

Original post by Renal

I don't believe anyone in the intelligence business, ever, relies on a single source - be it documentary, electronic or human.

Quite. And what I'm saying is that torture is not a useful source to add to these.

You'll note that this is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.

I thought it was exactly what you were arguing. Perhaps you didn't put it across well.

Which is what a lot of people have said, but still nobody has provided the remotest shred of proof.

Would you like to prove your side instead? That would make the argument easier.

Reply 98

Axes

Original post by In2deep

No I clearly made a distinction.

I said there must be a a reason for something to be classed as "torture", but if it is then oppose it.

Some do, some don't. If tomorrow someone defines handcuffing a subject as torture, you would oppose it automatically too?

Reply 99

missygeorgia

Original post by Renal

Which is all rather meaningless since the last sentence excuses acts performed by the state in the interests of law and order. What is more, plenty of what we don't consider torture is can easily be considered to cause physical or mental suffering.

Sure, that's an ambiguous bit in the definition, but aside from that it's pretty obvious what torture is from that definition. In fact, it's generally pretty obvious to anyone, definition or no definition, what torture is. The only people who would claim otherwise are those who are trying to make excuses for torture.