Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump supports waterboarding and will move to end it's "status as a war crime
455 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;49698981]The people who are pro-torture aren't the ones who have to torture a man. Why would they worry about how moral or immoral it is? they're free from consequence if someone innocent is tortured alive and then killed because it goes bad.
All they have to do is say that "its just an unfortunate side of it" and act like they good human beings, and they can just pretend like they are free from any wrong doing. After all, they aren't the ones who have to do it. They're free of sin![/QUOTE]
Those who advocate for it are those harbor the delusion they are "good people" and thus will never be tortured. Only people not like them are bad and deserve it. Its narcissm
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49699007]Those who advocate for it are those harbor the delusion they are "good people" and thus will never be tortured. Only people not like them are bad and deserve it. Its narcissm[/QUOTE]
When it comes down to it, they literally would never do the torturing itself. No, that's for totally nameless 'agents' who don't actually exist in their mind. If they were told "you have to torture this man for answers, or millions could die" and were made to do it they literally would never be able to go through it.
Same exact logic for "Just execute the fucker and be done with it". These people would never go through with it. They advocate torture because they're cowards, and will say bullshit like
[QUOTE=wystan;49693000]frankly this is more entertaining that the typical [B]hugbox [/B]and circle jerk usually taking place here.[/QUOTE]
and circle jerk around the issue without getting anywhere, to make themselves seem like they aren't
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49698372]Aside from the obvious ethical issues, torture's ineffective. History has proven time and time again that coerced confessions will, more likely than not, yield results even without involving torture. Hell, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephanie_Crowe"]read about the murder of Stephanie Crow if you don't believe me[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Not even just torture. Japan has a 99% conviction rate and long ass interrogations (2 weeks to a month).
You think all of those people are guilty?
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20810572[/url]
Clearly not. Even a long interrogation can get a person to admit to rape and murder.
[QUOTE]Same exact logic for "Just execute the fucker and be done with it". [/QUOTE]
so you see the pattern? whenever this pattern appears, is when society becomes dysfunctional and hellish.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49698699]Who cares. Moral equivalence is just an exercise in liberal intellectual masturbation when we're talking about the real world. [/QUOTE]
Nice, a meaningless and trite piece of word soup
[QUOTE]You know what separates me and my in group from them? It's more than just geography, it's interests.[/QUOTE]
Yeah? And those are influenced by your geography, based on the local cultures that first have an effect on you, your views, and become the basis for who you are as an early person. Even in a highly globalized world, growing up in Syria you're likely to have some pretty different interests than growing up in rural ohio on at least some pretty significant factors of your personality.
Seems like you don't understand the concept.
[QUOTE] What interest do I have in sacrificing something real for something abstract?[/QUOTE]
Clarify this in relation to the rest of the conversation. Getting highbrow with your english isn't really the best way to actually communicate what you want, just obfuscate it behind implications and vagueness.
[QUOTE] What do I gain besides brownie points for confronting this 'truth' about the nature of conflict?[/QUOTE]
Well if you really are only fighting people and not thinking about your motivations, the grander scheme of things, then that's not going to make for a good world. Foresight is not a bad thing, no matter how much you might try and spin this into some "Liberal intellectual masturbation".
[QUOTE] Who is so privileged they are idle enough to tackle these questions and lecture the average man about them?[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry I was born in a place where I was taught to think about things like this. No, actually, what kind of pathetic criticism is this? It's utterly meaningless beyond trying to attack at the personality of whoever dares question your views on this.
I don't know why you guys are having trouble with what I said or consider it word soup. In all honesty if I was doing that I'd just rephrase but I can't. I literally don't see liberal individualism and morality as anything but intellectual masturbation in this case. Give me one reason I should give a shit about an out group other than 'because my humanities class taught me it's all relative to say otherwise is basically fascism'
[QUOTE=Conscript;49699133]I don't know why you guys are having trouble with what I said or consider it word soup. In all honesty if I was doing that I'd just rephrase but I can't. I literally don't see liberal individualism and morality as anything but intellectual masturbation in this case. Give me one reason I should give a shit about an out group other than 'because my humanities class taught me it's all relative to say otherwise is basically fascism'[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to take anyone who unironically uses "intellectual masturbation" as a critique of an argument seriously.
[editline]9th February 2016[/editline]
What does that term even mean? Is it supposed to be a bad thing that hypotheticals are discussed as an intellectual exercise? And how does "liberal individualism" even come into play here?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49699133]I don't know why you guys are having trouble with what I said or consider it word soup. In all honesty if I was doing that I'd just rephrase but I can't. I literally don't see liberal individualism and morality as anything but intellectual masturbation in this case. Give me one reason I should give a shit about an out group other than 'because my humanities class taught me it's all relative to say otherwise is basically fascism'[/QUOTE]
Because it has no meaning to me? Liberal intellectual masturbation. What does that actually mean? Is it a statement about how you think people who are intellectual(what a trite criticism that really is) and liberal(also a nebolous criticism) are pointlessly engaged in debates to stroke their own ego's?
But that's a worthless argument. It's purely assumptive of the people who are arguing with you, and it's only purpose can possibly be to say "I live in the real world, you don't, your voices, arguments, are unimportant here" which is so incredibly condescending and meaningless that I just don't care enough to argue about beyond that.
I didn't take any humanities classes to come to my thoughts, though thanks for doing what you seem all to eager to do and just assume who you're arguing with all in a vain attempt to not actually have to question your own thoughts because that would just be [B]liberal intellectual masturbation[/B] right?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49699133]I don't know why you guys are having trouble with what I said or consider it word soup. In all honesty if I was doing that I'd just rephrase but I can't. I literally don't see liberal individualism and morality as anything but intellectual masturbation in this case. Give me one reason I should give a shit about an out group other than 'because my humanities class taught me it's all relative to say otherwise is basically fascism'[/QUOTE]
because to ignore the authoritarian nature of indiscriminate torture while in an active conflict with one of its chief users in the modern world would be extremely dim-witted at best, and pretty much say you have no idea where your military budget is going or why it's going there? "duh, torture, what's that gotta do with one of the most regressive states on the planet?"
you're like someone in a chemistry class asking "why is water so wet?"
[QUOTE=Conscript;49699133]I don't know why you guys are having trouble with what I said or consider it word soup. In all honesty if I was doing that I'd just rephrase but I can't. I literally don't see liberal individualism and morality as anything but intellectual masturbation in this case. Give me one reason I should give a shit about an out group other than 'because my humanities class taught me it's all relative to say otherwise is basically fascism'[/QUOTE]
emotions are real. they affect you. morals might be relative but you can't just disregard them completely as some sort of outworldly imaginary concept. if you're going to pretend to be pragmatic, quit trying to deviate the discussion into a philosophical argument
Maybe if we torture them enough we will also be able to make them promise not to hate us. Sure that means their family and friends might get pissed off, but we can always just bring them in for a good old round of water-the-board as well.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699308]Maybe if we torture them enough we will also be able to make them promise not to hate us. Sure that means their family and friends might get pissed off, but we can always just bring them in for a good old round of water-the-board as well.[/QUOTE]
remember to water-board the babies too so they don't become killers later
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699308]Maybe if we torture them enough we will also be able to make them promise not to hate us. Sure that means their family and friends might get pissed off, but we can always just bring them in for a good old round of water-the-board as well.[/QUOTE]
what about their families' families
and THEIR families
what if the only choice is to torture everyone
what if our world is the way it is because someone realized this and made everything shitty on purpose
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;49697634]that's exactly what i was thinking as i read through this entire thread
wystan i really think that poster that said a few pages back that you're basing your opinions on emotion rather than logic was spot on
i can really appreciate the sentiment of the whole "muh countrymen" thing, but your arguments are so full of holes and you've started to outright ignore several valid points against you
i would really like to hear what you have to say on the whole "if you were born in the middle east you'd be fighting for ISIL saying the exact same shit" because tbh that's pretty chilling and from how i see it not too inaccurate
oops like five hours late i hope ya'll aint sick of this by now[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to ignore points but it's hard to keep track of all the replies and questions, I am quite out numbered here. I don't see really any holes since these are just my beliefs.
As for the whole me being an ISIS member given different circumstances thing. I had to think about this one but I think they're are some differences between the actions and rationale of ISIS and just me simply being ok with torture. I don't wish to kill or torture those who disagree with me, that is only reserved for those actively trying to kill Americans, but for nations whose government just don't like us (Venezuela for example) I don't wish death or anything upon them, yes I have my unfavorable opinions of them but nothing you all would consider extreme. I don't want to kill or torture "non-believers" of my American Exceptionalism.
:snip:
[QUOTE=wystan;49699960]I don't mean to ignore points but it's hard to keep track of all the replies and questions, I am quite out numbered here. I don't see really any holes since these are just my beliefs.
As for the whole me being an ISIS member given different circumstances thing. I had to think about this one but I think they're are some differences between the actions and rationale of ISIS and just me simply being ok with torture. I don't wish to kill or torture those who disagree with me, that is only reserved for those actively trying to kill Americans, but for nations whose government just don't like us (Venezuela for example) I don't wish death or anything upon them, yes I have my unfavorable opinions of them but nothing you all would consider extreme. I don't want to kill or torture "non-believers" of my American Exceptionalism.[/QUOTE]
Let me sum them up
[B]1. Torture doesn't work for information gathering[/B]
Torture produces results. Not reliable results. Like it's been said, two of the three initial suspects in the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephanie_Crowe]murder of Stephanie Crowe[/url] confessed to the murder, despite later being ruled innocent. And that was through coercion, threats, and multiple, long interrogation sessions, not physical torture. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture]Senate's Report on CIA torture[/url] shows that it is counterproductive, and more often than not, produces either false or no data. It shines a light on the interrogation of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah]Abu Zubaydah[/url], which is often cited as being a "life saving" example of information acquired through torture.
[quote]In 2009, a former FBI agent, Ali Soufan, who had taken part in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah seven years earlier, said that [B]all the useful intelligence came from traditional non-violent questioning, and that his later waterboarding produced nothing further of value.[/B]
“Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: [B]it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security[/B]”[/quote]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work[/url]
There is little scientific evidence that torture works. Which is probably why CIA's torture had little to no scientific oversight.
[quote]One reason the “ticking time bomb” myth has been allowed to persist is that the [B]CIA has resisted any scientific oversight of its interrogation programme[/B], instead continuing to use decades-old coercive techniques despite a lack of evidence that they work. [B]A 2006 review of US interrogation methods concluded that the lack of research meant that interrogators had to make things up “on the fly”, which was leading to cases of abuse.[/B] To redress this, in 2012 the White House put out a call for “behavioral science research to advance the science and practice of intelligence interviewing and interrogation”, but it has had little impact so far.
The only role that science has played in the CIA’s interrogation programme has been hugely controversial. [B]Between 2002 and 2009, the enhanced aspects of the programme were designed and operated by two former military psychologists. “Neither psychologist had any experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialized knowledge of al-Qa’ida, a background in counterterrorism, or any relevant cultural or linguistic expertise,” [/B]the Senate investigation found. Other psychologists have had lesser roles in the programme, participating in or overseeing interrogations. This has also proved to be contentious, and the American Psychological Association is currently under fire for allowing its members to take part in coercive interrogations, a charge it denies.[/quote]
[url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26685-that-cia-torture-methods-were-pointless-is-no-shock[/url]
Brain research professor Shane O'Mara supports the hypothesis by saying:
[quote][...][B]torture does not produce reliable information largely because of the severity with which it impairs the ability to think.[/B] Extreme pain, cold, sleep deprivation and fear of torture itself all damage memory, mood and cognition. [B]Torture does not persuade people to make a reasoned decision to cooperate, but produces panic, dissociation, unconsciousness and long-term neurological damage. It also produces an intense desire to keep talking to prevent further torture.[/B][/quote]
[url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/[/url]
[B]2. Torture doesn't work as propaganda[/B]
The only thing torture tells your enemies is that you're the monster they always said you were. It legitimizes hatred and fuels terrorist practices. The fear serves as no deterrent.
[quote]Among the most notable victims of torture was Sayeed Qutb, the founding father of modern political jihadism. His 1964 book, “Milestones,” describes a journey towards radicalization that included rape and torture, sometimes with dogs, in an Egyptian prison. [B]He left jail burning with the determination to wage transnational jihad to destroy these regimes and their backers, calling for war against all those who used these methods against Muslims.[/B][/quote]
[url]http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/rula_jebreal_torture_defenders_are_driving_america_to_moral_suicide_partner/[/url]
The head of US intelligence said:
[quote]“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world,” [Director of National Intelligence Dennis] Blair said in the statement. [B]“The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”[/B][/quote]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104334.html[/url]
anyone who thinks using torture as propaganda has their head right far up their ass
you can't torture people into liking you, it just gives them a REALLY good reason to hate you.
in trying to prevent terrorism, the only thing you make is more terrorism.
The funny thing is, torture being an unreliable source of information has been known for hundreds of years, way back into ye olde times, except back then there wasn't anything resembling 'human rights' to stop torturers from doing their thing.
Often, back then, they would torture someone solely to confess to a crime, not for any actual information anyway so [B]Y'KNOW[/B]...
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;49700465]The funny thing is, torture being an unreliable source of information has been known for hundreds of years, way back into ye olde times, except back then there wasn't anything resembling 'human rights' to stop torturers from doing their thing.
Often, back then, they would torture someone solely to confess to a crime, not for any actual information anyway so [B]Y'KNOW[/B]...[/QUOTE]
What is the point you trying to make? I mean it was useful to finding witches and all sorts of heretics.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49700338]Let me sum them up
[B]1. Torture doesn't work for information gathering[/B]
Torture produces results. Not reliable results. Like it's been said, two of the three initial suspects in the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephanie_Crowe"]murder of Stephanie Crowe[/URL] confessed to the murder, despite later being ruled innocent. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture"]Senate's Report on CIA torture[/URL] shows that it is counterproductive, and more often than not, produces either false or no data. It shines a light on the interrogation of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah"]Abu Zubaydah[/URL], which is often cited as being a "life saving" example of information acquired through torture.
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work[/URL]
There is little scientific evidence that torture works. Which is probably why CIA's torture had little to no scientific oversight.
[URL]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26685-that-cia-torture-methods-were-pointless-is-no-shock[/URL]
Brain research professor Shane O'Mara supports the hypothesis by saying:
[URL]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/[/URL]
[B]2. Torture doesn't work as propaganda[/B]
The only thing torture tells your enemies is that you're the monster they always said you were. It legitimizes hatred and fuels terrorist practices. The fear serves as no deterrent.
[URL]http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/rula_jebreal_torture_defenders_are_driving_america_to_moral_suicide_partner/[/URL]
The head of US intelligence said:
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104334.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
These cases about torture not working all come from people who clearly don't know the information desired, I've said this many times, that is when torture is likely to be effective and worth doing. The waterboarding of Ali Soufan seems pointless and cruel if he had already been cooperative prior. And I think fear can be a good deterrent, not all the time and not for everyone, but the reason most people don't do things is the fear of violence being done to them or the laws in place, that are backed by violence, and for those just fueled to continue waging war, well then we can just kill them and be done with it. For the rest of it, again like I've said before, keep it clandestine.
What else should we do with our prisoners hell bent on destroying us? Executing them is a waste, if they won't give information through peaceful means, why not try torture, there is no reason not to. As for keeping them as a bargaining chip, I think that is only valid if the negotiating with the terrorists is met with subterfuge and deceit since negotiating with these people I feel is unacceptable. Simply holding them in captivity indefinitely is a waste and increases the chances of escape and collusion.
[QUOTE=wystan;49700557]These cases about torture not working all come from people who clearly don't know the information desired, I've said this many times, that is when torture is likely to be effective and worth doing. The waterboarding of Ali Soufan seems pointless and cruel if he had already been cooperative prior. And I think fear can be a good deterrent, not all the time and not for everyone, but the reason most people don't do things is the fear of violence being done to them or the laws in place, that are backed by violence, and for those just fueled to continue waging war, well then we can just kill them and be done with it.[/QUOTE]
The very fact that you have been incited into hating ISIS so much that you'd use torture against them is proof of the fact that torture only serves to make people hate the aggressor more and wish violence upon them, rather than make people fear them.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49700532]What is the point you trying to make? I mean it was useful to finding witches and all sorts of heretics.[/QUOTE]
It was also "useful" for forcing Jews to convert to Christianity or leave Spanish lands. Also, it was "useful" for finding witches; witchcraft doesn't exist so congrats on proving that torture has always been inflicting painful victimization on minorities. Is this the point you hoped to make by saying this?
[editline]well[/editline]
I apparently took that post at face value more than I should have, but at any rate the point is still the same.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49700580]The very fact that you have been incited into hating ISIS so much that you'd use torture against them is proof of the fact that torture only serves to make people hate the aggressor more and wish violence upon them, rather than make people fear them.[/QUOTE]
Do you think I'm reflective of most people? Everyone else seems to disagree with me, so I don't think that would be the case.
[QUOTE=wystan;49700598]Do you think I'm reflective of most people? Everyone else seems to disagree with me, so I don't think that would be the case.[/QUOTE]
That... doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say? That most of us here in the West fear ISIS rather than hate them? That if the West were to use torture on ISIS fighters, they would fear us rather than hate us more?
[QUOTE=wystan;49700557]The waterboarding of Ali Soufan seems pointless and cruel if he had already been cooperative prior. [/QUOTE]
Proof you have no idea what you're talking about and aren't willing to hear differing opinions:
You read this
[quote]the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah[/quote]
[quote]a former FBI agent, Ali Soufan, who had taken part in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah[/quote]
as this
[quote]The waterboarding of Ali Soufan[/quote]
You skimmed through, saw an Arabic sounding name and assumed he was the terrorist. I doubt you clicked any of the sources or read any of the other quotes. What a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49700608]Proof you have no idea what you're talking about and aren't willing to hear differing opinions:
You read this
as this
You skimmed through, saw an Arabic sounding name and assumed he was the terrorist. I doubt you clicked any of the sources or read any of the other quotes. What a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]
Calm down, I mixed up the names. My point still stands.
[QUOTE=wystan;49700626]Calm down, I mixed up the names. My point still stands.[/QUOTE]
Except it doesn't because you pulled the "they didn't know the information desired" out of your ass?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49700632]Except it doesn't because you pulled the "they didn't know the information desired" out of your ass?[/QUOTE]
Well clearly Abu Zubaydah did and it implied he was cooperative, so I said waterboarding him afterward was pointless and curel. Did you even read my post? Or were you too upset I mixed up the names to read straight?
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49690620]I'm curious why people support this. I suspect people are listening to his tone and not the words he is saying.[/QUOTE]
That's politics in general, people jumped all over Bush's "amerikkka is awesome, just like tacos is awesome" message until they realized he didn't really know or mean anything in his speeches, much less his pants-as-a-hat policies, meanwhile Cheney is building an actual Death Star out on the white house lawn with FEMA money.
[QUOTE=wystan;49700648]Well clearly Abu Zubaydah did and it implied he was cooperative, so I said waterboarding him afterward was pointless and curel. Did you even read my post? Or were you too upset I mixed up the names to read straight?[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to tell me that in the span of 37 minutes between my post and yours, you read through 6 articles, a Senate report, dozens of studies linked in the articles, and found not a single mention of torture in a case where they knew the desired info? And it's just a coincidence that you only addressed a single case?
You just happened to miss the very first link, which says that [B]the investigators had a schizophrenic with a lengthy criminal record who was knocking on doors at the night of the murder[/B] but dismissed him because of personal conviction? Or that this is in line with what the brain research professor said in one of the links?
[quote]Interrogators often escalate torture when they think a suspect is withholding information or lying, but there is no good evidence that interrogators are better than the rest of us at detecting lies. In fact,[B] there is evidence that when people are trained as interrogators, they become more likely to think others are lying to them.[/B] This belief can lead to alarming errors, whereby people are tortured because their torturer wrongly believes they are lying. New technologies to detect lies do not work either, says O’Mara.[/quote]
You can pretend all you want, I ain't buying it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.