Donald Trump flips his stance on torture; killing terrorists families - Polidicks

[QUOTE=wystan;49878549]But why not try? Keeping them in a cell is indefinitely doesn't do much, and if easy questioning doesn't work, and if interrogating doesn't work and they are being uncooperative, why not try? [B]I don't think torture should be the first option, that would be cruel. At least give people the chance to comply.[/B][/QUOTE] This completely sidesteps the fact that the prisoner needs to have something to disclose. What if your asking a question to which the prisoner does not know the answer? All you're going to get is a lot of pain and fake information.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;49878822]I'm asking if you're turning a blind eye to:[/QUOTE] I disagree with the implication that bad intel inherently leads to someone innocent being killed. If the one being tortured knowingly gave bad intel and got an innocent killed, then it's on him. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49878834]This completely sidesteps the fact that the prisoner needs to have something to disclose. What if your asking a question to which the prisoner does not know the answer? All you're going to get is a lot of pain and fake information.[/QUOTE] I've said before, make sure we target people who would likely know something, cross reference answers from other people, etc.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878808]I don't understand this scenario. Are you talking about a specific situation where we receive bad intel and act on it that results in us killing someone else, someone presumably innocent?[/QUOTE] If information is bad, it has a higher chance of leading to the loss of innocent life. If a torture suspect gives you a location/name just to make the pain stop for a while, how reliable is that information? The data shows us that the answer is "rarely, if ever". So what do you do with that bad information? Do you act upon it, and bring in a civilian American in for questioning because the terrie heard their name mentioned somewhere on the street? What if the civilian then 'resists' the scharff techniques because they're innocent and don't know anything? Do you then torture the innocent man? What if they give you a location where a bomb is placed? "I don't know exactly, but its somewhere in times square, please stop thats all I know" Do you then waste thousands of hours of manpower searching for a bomb on times square? Sure there could be one, but [B]how can you be sure[/B]? There's a huge difference in info gained during torture and info gained during dialogue.

Torture even more people to ensure that your information is correct. Right.

@Wystan: Lemme be a little more clear since that's apparently going over your head. You claim that torture, done correctly, can't result in loss of life, and the foundation of your argument is efficiency: that we should use every tool we have because that will always potentially net more actionable intelligence. I asked if you believe bad intel gained from torture which leads to loss of life was still worth torturing for. Do you believe it's worth that or don't you? Because you're contradicting yourself somewhere in there, or putting the blame on something that isn't torture, to have those two contrasting opinions at the same time. I'm curious to know which. Edit: [quote]then it's on him[/quote] By the gods. Well, OK. That takes victim blaming to a new level. Alright everyone go home. Our torturers are faultless individuals who can do no harm. Their hands are not drenched in blood - it was not they nor our intel. officers who advocated the use of torture, or the people on the ground who shot people, or even the superior officers beholden to the torture who're responsible for innocent loss of life. It's the one who's being tortured, who'll say anything to hurt other people. It's their fault they gave us bad intel which killed people; their fault our torture wasn't effective. We're blameless and innocent in this. If it leads to bad intel then so be it at least we got more intel.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878842]I disagree with the implication that bad intel inherently leads to someone innocent being killed. [B]If the one being tortured knowingly gave bad intel and got an innocent killed, then it's on him. [/B] [/QUOTE] TTTTHATTTTS THE THIIIIINNNNGGGG you're almost getting it! People being tortured [B]can not use their rational thought processes or think about cause and effect/action and consequence[/B] which is exactly why [B]we gave you this link to read:[/B] [URL]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/[/URL] The only thing you're thinking about is how to make the torture stop for even a little bit. Not about "Hmm, I do say dear fellow, I might just grant them some incorrect information for the fun of it, hmm"

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49878843]If information is bad, it has a higher chance of leading to the loss of innocent life. If a torture suspect gives you a location/name just to make the pain stop for a while, how reliable is that information? The data shows us that the answer is "rarely, if ever". So what do you do with that bad information? Do you act upon it, and bring in a civilian American in for questioning because the terrie heard their name mentioned somewhere on the street? What if the civilian then 'resists' the scharff techniques because they're innocent and don't know anything? Do you then torture the innocent man? What if they give you a location where a bomb is placed? "I don't know exactly, but its somewhere in times square, please stop thats all I know" Do you then waste thousands of hours of manpower searching for a bomb on times square? Sure there could be one, but [B]how can you be sure[/B]? There's a huge difference in info gained during torture and info gained during dialogue.[/QUOTE] Well like I said before, we should do our diligence. No we shouldn't place bags over random people's heads and torture them, also you say "civilian American", Americans are protected from torture by Americans so that wouldn't ever happen. For a bomb threat. Yes absolutely, why is that even a question, you don't take that information lightly because inaction could cause more deaths. And manhours wasted is better than innocent life wasted.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878861]Well like I said before, we should do our diligence. No we shouldn't place bags over random people's heads and torture them, also you say "civilian American", [B]Americans are protected from torture by Americans[/B] so that wouldn't ever happen. For a bomb threat. Yes absolutely, why is that even a question, you don't take that information lightly because inaction could cause more deaths. And manhours wasted is better than innocent life wasted.[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1505498[/url] Seriously. It can have differing faces but torture one way or another is still torture, no matter who is perpetrating it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;49878845]@Wystan: Lemme be a little more clear since that's apparently going over your head. You claim that torture, done correctly, can't result in loss of life, and the foundation of your argument is efficiency: that we should use every tool we have because that will always potentially net more actionable intelligence. I asked if you believe bad intel gained from torture which leads to loss of life was still worth torturing for. Do you believe it's worth that or don't you? Because you're contradicting yourself somewhere in there, or putting the blame on something that isn't torture, to have those two contrasting opinions at the same time. I'm curious to know which. Edit: By the gods. Well, OK. That takes victim blaming to a new level. Alright everyone go home. Our torturers are faultless individuals who can do no harm. Their hands are not drenched in blood - it was not they nor our intel. officers who advocated the use of torture, or the people on the ground who shot people, or even the superior officers beholden to the torture who're responsible for innocent loss of life. It's the one who's being tortured, who'll say anything to hurt other people. It's their fault they gave us bad intel which killed people; their fault our torture wasn't effective. We're blameless and innocent in this. If it leads to bad intel then so be it at least we got more intel.[/QUOTE] If a "bad guy" knowingly gives bad intel that results in innocents getting killed, how is that not his fault?

[QUOTE=wystan;49878861]Well like I said before, we should do our diligence. No we shouldn't place bags over random people's heads and torture them, also you say "civilian American", [B]Americans are protected from torture by Americans so that wouldn't ever happen. [/B] For a bomb threat. Yes absolutely, why is that even a question, you don't take that information lightly because inaction could cause more deaths. And manhours wasted is better than innocent life wasted.[/QUOTE] How about Americans "obviously" involved in a terror threat, where you needed to unravel the plans before they were carried out? Would torture be allowed then?

[quote]how is that not his fault[/quote] All he had to do was just press X to not give us bad intel while we [i]made him feel like he was dying and messed his mind up so much he's forgotten what direction is up[/i]; it's his fault he couldn't keep up. You're right, wystan. How is it not his fault for giving us the bad intel we [u]forced him[/u] to give us? Are you actually thinking about these situations or...?

[QUOTE=wystan;49878872]If a "bad guy" knowingly gives bad intel that results in innocents getting killed, how is that not his fault?[/QUOTE] Well, you could argue he was under duress and would say basically anything to get out if we're talking about torture.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878872]If a "bad guy" knowingly gives bad intel that results in innocents getting killed, how is that not his fault?[/QUOTE] What if there's no intel to give, and he gives false intel just to make the torture stop?

[QUOTE=wystan;49878861]Well like I said before, we should do our diligence. No we shouldn't place bags over random people's heads and torture them, also you say "civilian American", Americans are protected from torture by Americans so that wouldn't ever happen. For a bomb threat. Yes absolutely, why is that even a question, you don't take that information lightly because inaction could cause more deaths. And manhours wasted is better than innocent life wasted.[/QUOTE] You said the CIA is the most secretive organization in the world. They were told by law to hand over their torture documents. They are prohibited by law to torture American citizens. So you said that they didn't actually give us the actual documents. Are you also gonna say that they're torturing American citizens? Also about the bomb: no, you don't, because torture doesn't work. Times square is one of the most famous locations on the planet, and every single terrorist has probably heard of it. You said you're supposed to "do your diligence", which in this case would mean actually evaluating the data. One subject under torture said times square. You're literally [B]creating nonexistent problems for yourself to solve[/B]

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49878869][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1505498[/url] Seriously. It can have differing faces but torture one way or another is still torture, no matter who is perpetrating it.[/QUOTE] I read the article and saw nothing about torture, but let's say there was. Then yea that's absolutely terrible and should never happen and then men responsible need to be punished.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878872]If a "bad guy" knowingly gives bad intel that results in innocents getting killed, how is that not his fault?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=EcksDee;49878853]TTTTHATTTTS THE THIIIIINNNNGGGG you're almost getting it! People being tortured [B]can not use their rational thought processes or think about cause and effect/action and consequence[/B] which is exactly why [B]we gave you this link to read:[/B] [URL]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/[/URL] The only thing you're thinking about is how to make the torture stop for even a little bit. Not about "Hmm, I do say dear fellow, I might just grant them some incorrect information for the fun of it, hmm"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=wystan;49878638]As for the big fun issue of healthcare. Estonia is not a comparable nation to the US, from all my reading about Estonia it seems like a wonderful place, I really like how y'all actually spend the required amount on Defense for being a part of NATO. But providing healthcare for a nation that is less populated than some of our cities is not comparable to providing healthcare for the third most populated nation on Earth. I wish it were cheaper too, not free, but cheaper. From what I hear though the wait times in Europe where it is free can be abysmal, again a nation like yours may circumvent that, but at least here if you got the money to pay, you can get treated well and fast, it's not as exaggerated as you make it seem.[/QUOTE] Hi. I live in Denmark, in a shitty little town with a population of less than 5000 people. We have a small medical clinic here, it's not a hospital but they can take care of almost anything short of surgery or long term hospitalization. If I suspect I might have some kind of non-acute medical problem and I want it diagnosed, I can walk down there and get an appointment some time later that week. Minimal waiting time. If I think it might be acute, I can walk down there and get checked almost immediately. If it's something beyond the clinics means but still not life threatening, like say, I broke my leg, I can go to the hospital a city over. Depending on how busy they are that day, I might have to wait anywhere from ten minutes to a few hours, but I'll be out of there later that day with whatever surgery I needed done. If I have something immediately life threatening, I can call an ambulance, and I'll be in the hospital getting treated in less than half an hour. No wait times except for how long it takes for the ambulance to get here and back. Our system is perfectly fine. I also just want to point out that if your system is faster due to it not being free, the reason it's faster is clearly that many people who need it don't get treated because they can't afford to, which is certainly not a positive.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878888]I read the article and saw nothing about torture, but let's say there was. Then yea that's absolutely terrible and should never happen and then men responsible need to be punished.[/QUOTE] It's about sheriffs in LA County jails committing brutality and engaging in corruption, how do you not at least see how the brutality itself is torture on the jail populace?

[QUOTE=wystan;49878716]Sadism implies I enjoy it.[/QUOTE] neither did Jim Jones to be fair

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49878910]It's about sheriffs in LA County jails committing brutality and engaging in corruption, how do you not at least see how the brutality itself is torture on the jail populace?[/QUOTE] Well obviously you can only [I]torture[/I] terrorists.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49878878]How about Americans "obviously" involved in a terror threat, where you needed to unravel the plans before they were carried out? Would torture be allowed then?[/QUOTE] Then they are protected. But if there is any proof of them fighting or serving another force, the revoke their citizenship and problem solved. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;49878880]All he had to do was just press X to not give us bad intel while we [i]made him feel like he was dying and messed his mind up so much he's forgotten what direction is up[/i]; it's his fault he couldn't keep up. You're right, wystan. How is it not his fault for giving us the bad intel we [u]forced him[/u] to give us? Are you actually thinking about these situations or...?[/QUOTE] You imply that we act on every bit on intel and just accept every word given.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878928]Then they are protected. But if there is any proof of them fighting or serving another force, the revoke their citizenship and problem solved.[/QUOTE] Yay for terrible precedents.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49878936]Yay for terrible precedents.[/QUOTE] That isn't a new precedent. That is one of the very few ways to lose your citizenship. I didn't say revoke it because they are a member of deemed terrorist organization, because that would set a terrible precedent I agree. [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;49878899]Hi. I live in Denmark, in a shitty little town with a population of less than 5000 people. We have a small medical clinic here, it's not a hospital but they can take care of almost anything short of surgery or long term hospitalization. If I suspect I might have some kind of non-acute medical problem and I want it diagnosed, I can walk down there and get an appointment some time later that week. Minimal waiting time. If I think it might be acute, I can walk down there and get checked almost immediately. If it's something beyond the clinics means but still not life threatening, like say, I broke my leg, I can go to the hospital a city over. Depending on how busy they are that day, I might have to wait anywhere from ten minutes to a few hours, but I'll be out of there later that day with whatever surgery I needed done. If I have something immediately life threatening, I can call an ambulance, and I'll be in the hospital getting treated in less than half an hour. No wait times except for how long it takes for the ambulance to get here and back. Our system is perfectly fine. I also just want to point out that if your system is faster due to it not being free, the reason it's faster is clearly that many people who need it don't get treated because they can't afford to, which is certainly not a positive.[/QUOTE] Pretty much all my points about Estonia apply you too, except you all don't do your fair share of defense spending in NATO, don't worry we'll pick up the slack. Again, I didn't speak of the wait times with certainty, but can you imagine now having to provide for 320~ million, not a nation of <6 million.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878941] Pretty much all my points about Estonia apply you too, except you all don't do your fair share of defense spending in NATO, don't worry we'll pick up the slack. Again, I didn't speak of the wait times with certainty,[B] but can you imagine now having to provide for 320~ million, not a nation of <6 million.[/B][/QUOTE] So with 320 million people paying taxes you're telling me we can't manage enough hospitals/treatment centers in order to take care of the people?

[QUOTE=kyle877;49878972]So with 320 million people paying taxes you're telling me we can't manage enough hospitals/treatment centers in order to take care of the people?[/QUOTE] I didn't say the system can't use improvement. But what the US needs to spend it's money on is very very different than Estonia or Denmark. And in my experience, there are no shortage of hospitals and treatment centers I've never once had an issue with paying for treatment and the like, and I'm not affluent in the slightest.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878941]Pretty much all my points about Estonia apply you too, except you all don't do your fair share of defense spending in NATO, don't worry we'll pick up the slack. Again, I didn't speak of the wait times with certainty, but can you imagine now having to provide for 320~ million, not a nation of <6 million.[/QUOTE] The 0.6% we're underspending by (iirc) isn't what's making our healthcare budget work, for your information, so nice of you to pick up the slack (and us for buying your weapons I guess), but that isn't an argument against universal healthcare in the US. And yeah I can imagine providing to 320 million instead of 6 million, because the budget scales with the populace. Sure, the US is much larger area wise, but I don't think that problem (access to healthcare) is any way solved by a free market economy where it really doesn't make sense to build hospitals in less dense areas unless they're paying very well.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878978]I didn't say the system can't use improvement. B[B]ut what the US needs to spend it's money on is very very different than Estonia or Denmark.[/B] And in my experience, there are no shortage of hospitals and treatment centers I've never once had an issue with paying for treatment and the like, and I'm not affluent in the slightest.[/QUOTE] That's a fucking cop out excuse that every 'MUH CAPITALISM' politician has spit out and I'm fucking sick of hearing that shit. We dump too much money into the military (several times over than the runner up countries), and hardly afford to take care of our troops when they're done with their time. We have a disgusting homeless situation. There are people that are sick, that can't get treated because they don't want to put their family into irrevocable debt, and you think that's a fucking acceptable solution? That makes me fucking sick and it should make you sick, too. Edit: But fucking [B]NOOOO[/B] we can't have tax-paid health care, because that's SOCIALISM AND SOCIALISM IS FOR COMMIES.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49878980]The 0.6% we're underspending by (iirc) isn't what's making our healthcare budget work, for your information, so nice of you to pick up the slack (and us for buying your weapons I guess), but that isn't an argument against universal healthcare in the US. And yeah I can imagine providing to 320 million instead of 6 million, because the budget scales with the populace. Sure, the US is much larger area wise, but I don't think that problem (access to healthcare) is any way solved by a free market economy where it really doesn't make sense to build hospitals in less dense areas unless they're paying very well.[/QUOTE] I have never been anywhere in the US were access to hospitals was an issue. I think it should be affordable for all, but I think those who are willing and able to pay more should have access to better healthcare, there should be competition.

[QUOTE=wystan;49879000]I have never been anywhere in the US were access to hospitals was an issue. I think it should be affordable for all, but I think those who are willing and able to pay more should have access to better healthcare, there should be competition.[/QUOTE] So kinda like Singapore, if I've understood their system correctly? And now you say it [I]should[/I] be affordable for all - how do you make, say, expensive cancer treatment affordable for low-income families? Edit: And if access isn't an issue in the US, I [I]really[/I] don't see how the scale is relevant when it comes to universal healthcare.

[QUOTE=wystan;49878872]If a "bad guy" knowingly gives bad intel that results in innocents getting killed, how is that not his fault?[/QUOTE] blame the victim and just close your eyes and pretend you are a good person anything to make America safe