How Many Lives Would Have Been Saved Had we Tortured the Captured Paris Terrorist?

[Esmeralda]

Clinton says torture doesnt work; nonsense, of course it works.

But I also think we could have gotten the information out of the captured terrorist and saved a lot of lives today.

What say the rest of you?

His cohorts would have been even angrier. There would have been more violence to retaliate, not less. Look at the stats on capital punishment in the US: it does not deter crime. Torture would not deter crime either, and, in fact, would have incited more violence.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it really does not. Or, to put it another way, it works to well. When tortured, the target will generally say anything at all to make the torture stop and will make shit up not only to conceal real plans but more likely just so that the torturer will think the information is genuine and stop torturing the prisoner.

That depends on if the interrogators are doing their job correctly. You dont just accept the first line of twaddle that comes out of them, but you rinse their minds with some pain so that when they remember the session the pain and discomfort is all that they remember of it.

Then you repeat the questions in a different order with different phrases, and see what you get and compare it. Typically this would happen over the course of days, and torture would not necessarily be used if the target is giving up good information without torture.

It does not depend on the interrogator. The fact is that there is not a single study I can find that upholds the effectiveness of torture methods. Throughout history it is insanely clear on how ineffective it is though. Such was used to get all manner of confessions from people on things that were more than untrue but were also literally impossible.

There are a myriad of studies that find the exact opposite though - that torture itself is ineffective.

Virtually everyone breaks. That does not mean it works. The info gained is notoriously inaccurate. Even more important is that we have methods that are BETTER at getting accurate and relevant data than torture. Why stoop down to torture if it is LESS LIKELY to get valuable information.

Because it is not less accurate if you do it right.

and if there are better ways of doing it, great, lets do them. Torture is an almost last resort. The last resort is torturing and killing their loved ones in front of them.

Your contention is that it is not less accurate but that is not supported by anything at all. It is pure conjecture and counter to anything that has been found actually investigating the subject.

Lastly, if you are seriously considering torturing the INNOCENT then you really are no worse than the terrorists themselves. 2 very powerful quotes come to mind:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

That is EXACTLY what you are advocating for - surrendering ALL liberties of those that might be a family member of a terrorist.

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
Christopher Dawson

You advocate that we are better than the Muslims that you intend to fight but then want to become just like them. Evil is evil, period. You cannot condone pure evil acts like torturing the innocent with loft statements of benevolence. They are outright lies.

Lol, I gave specific examples of where torture has worked, but you just blow it all off like I never said a thing. Is that what you consider to be discussion or reason?

And I am not talking about torture to get confessions; that is just lazy detective work. But attempting to extract real time intell from known terrorists, not merely those that know them, is valuable at yielding actionable data.

and if we dont have the balls to do that for our own children then we should go extinct and let people who really want to live take our place.

What examples were those?

The myriad of interrogations that yield valuable data without torture methods and the utter lack of those that do belies your contention. I did not see your cited and proven successful torture examples. Perhaps you could go into them again.

The experts in the field that actually do interrogations know that torture is not as effective as other means though:

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com
Interrogation, Intelligence Professionals Take Stand against Torture

Congress found that our own methods were ineffective:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R43906.pdf
"According to SSCI Study findings, its perspective on the effectiveness of EITs was based on its assessment of their ability to produce accurate information and/or gain the
cooperation of resisting detainees: “The Committee finds, based on a review of CIA interrogation records, that the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.” The SSCI Study determined the CIA’s claims of effectiveness were inaccurate and not based on credible measures of success. The SSCI Study quoted a CIA document that admitted the information produced was unreliable and “in many cases... ‘just speculation.’” In one finding, the SSCI Study summarizes the CIA’s inaccurate reporting:
[tab]1[/tab]The Committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism successes that the CIA has
[tab]1[/tab]attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques, and found them to be wrong in fundamental respects. In some cases,
[tab]1[/tab]there was no relationship between the cited counter terrorism success and any information provided by detainees during or after the
[tab]1[/tab]use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques."

Virtually every single study done on the matter shows that torture is utterly ineffective. A single example:
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

"As early as the third century A.D., the great Roman Jurist Ulpian noted that information obtained through torture was not to be trusted because some people are “so susceptible to pain that they will tell any lie rather than suffer it” (Peters, 1996). This warning about the unreliability of information extracted through the use of torture has echoed across the centuries. As one CIA operative who participated in torture during the Vietnam War put it, “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop torturing them” (Andersen, 2004, p. 3). Indeed, the Army Field Manual explains that strategically useful information is best obtained from prisoners who are treated humanely, and that information obtained through torture has produced faulty intelligence (Leahy, 2005). It is important to acknowledge that torture may sometimes lead to the dis-closure of accurate information. That is, confronted with excruciating pain, some Torture and Interrogation people tell what they know. However, many survivors of torture report that the truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with false information (Harbury, 2005). The goal was to appease the torturer, not to reveal the truth. And, because the interrogators were not omniscient, they could not discern which bits of information were true and which were false. Misreading their victims, torturers often failed to recognize the truth and continued to inflict pain. Victims continued to disclose, often fabricating information to in an effort to stop the pain (Conroy, 2000; Haritos-Fatouros, 2003). Many survivors of torture report that they would have said anything to “make the torture stop” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006). And, even in cases where torture may have preceded the disclosure of useful information, it is impossible to know whether less coercive forms of interrogation might have yielded the same or even better results."

It is not a question weather or not torture is effective - it is established fact that it is not. The fact that there was at some point in time through the millions of people that have been tortured someone that gave accurate information does not disprove that reality. There are new methods of obtaining information from bad people that want to hide it that have been developed over the years to be far more effective than the methods cave men used to use hitting each other over the head. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that it simply does not work nearly as well as modern techniques - why ignore all that?

 

[JimBowie1958]

His cohorts would have been even angrier. There would have been more violence to retaliate, not less. Look at the stats on capital punishment in the US: it does not deter crime. Torture would not deter crime either, and, in fact, would have incited more violence.

Who the hell is arguing that torture deters crime?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton says torture doesnt work; nonsense, of course it works.

But I also think we could have gotten the information out of the captured terrorist and saved a lot of lives today.

What say the rest of you?

His cohorts would have been even angrier. There would have been more violence to retaliate, not less. Look at the stats on capital punishment in the US: it does not deter crime. Torture would not deter crime either, and, in fact, would have incited more violence.

What "stat" prove capital punishment doesn't work when we almost never execute anyone, and when we do it's at least a decade after the crime was committed?

 

[bripat9643]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Clinton says torture doesnt work; nonsense, of course it works.

But I also think we could have gotten the information out of the captured terrorist and saved a lot of lives today.

What say the rest of you?

I have no clue.

I would likely say anything, even the truth, if subjected to enough pain

 

[JimBowie1958]

Clinton says torture doesnt work; nonsense, of course it works.

But I also think we could have gotten the information out of the captured terrorist and saved a lot of lives today.

What say the rest of you?

I have no clue.

I would likely say anything, even the truth, if subjected to enough pain

We had prisoners of war in Vietnam that held out under torture for years. They used combinations of false information and using obvious satire in their answers to not give up real information.

McCain the Collaborator was not among those who held out.

 

[bodecea]

Clinton says torture doesnt work; nonsense, of course it works.

But I also think we could have gotten the information out of the captured terrorist and saved a lot of lives today.

What say the rest of you?

You'd only want to torture for revenge.

 

[FA_Q2]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

 

[bripat9643]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

No they didn't. It's easy enough to verify whether the information they received is true or not. That's what idiots who claim torture doesn't work don't seem to understand. I'm sure it wouldn't work if you did it because you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to make it work.,

 

[FA_Q2]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

No they didn't. It's easy enough to verify whether the information they received is true or not. That's what idiots who claim torture doesn't work don't seem to understand. I'm sure it wouldn't work if you did it because you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to make it work.,

More name calling from the board idiot. Oh no...

I have cited several sources showing that torture is ineffective. Torture supporters cite nothing at all and call everyone else an idiot because they don't agree with their unsubstantiated and opinion that is counter to the evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

No they didn't. It's easy enough to verify whether the information they received is true or not. That's what idiots who claim torture doesn't work don't seem to understand. I'm sure it wouldn't work if you did it because you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to make it work.,

More name calling from the board idiot. Oh no...

I have cited several sources showing that torture is ineffective. Torture supporters cite nothing at all and call everyone else an idiot because they don't agree with their unsubstantiated and opinion that is counter to the evidence.

Your sources are nothing but worthless opinions. People have testified for centuries that torture works. Anyone with a brain understands that it works. If someone was going to inflict massive amounts of pain on me, I would tell them whatever they wanted to know to avoid it. You know in your heart that you would too.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

No they didn't. It's easy enough to verify whether the information they received is true or not. That's what idiots who claim torture doesn't work don't seem to understand. I'm sure it wouldn't work if you did it because you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to make it work.,

More name calling from the board idiot. Oh no...

I have cited several sources showing that torture is ineffective. Torture supporters cite nothing at all and call everyone else an idiot because they don't agree with their unsubstantiated and opinion that is counter to the evidence.

Your sources are nothing but worthless opinions. People have testified for centuries that torture works. Anyone with a brain understands that it works. If someone was going to inflict massive amounts of pain on me, I would tell them whatever they wanted to know to avoid it. You know in your heart that you would too.

I have stated as much.

You would tell them anything - everything they want to hear. Truth is irrelevant, only the cessation of pain. Considering that the interrogator is not omniscient he does not know lie from truth - the torture will continue on through truth or lie until he is satisfied. Then you have to follow through with other resources to verify every piece on information most of which is going to be garbage said to appease the torturer. in the end, all that the interrigator is going to get is what they tortured thinks he wants to hear and will end the pain.

You know how much the torturer wants to hear "I don't know anything else." Not at all. The continual stream of false data coming from the tortured will be almost impossible to sift through.

Anyone with a brain understands why torture is utterly ineffective. It has been spelled out. Those sources are not 'worthless opinion' because they are based on gathered evidence after investigating torture that was actually used rather than simply blankly stating that it is effective - what you have done. That blank and unsupported statement is what constitutes 'worthless opinion.' An opinion that ignores actual cases of torture right in front of you. Hanoi Hilton has already been pointed out and how torture was not effective in that setting (other than to create propaganda where torture really is effective).

Again, all this while we have had a lot of success with various other methods of interrogation that do not involve torture. Methods that are nigh impossible to implement after torture has been executed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What examples were those?

Wallsingham, Cortez and Pizarro used torture to uncover critical information and had they not they would have completely failed in their duty.

I can add to that Peter the Great tortured his own son to uncover a major coup plotted against him. He did get other officers to turn via torture, though his own son would not give anything up. The coup was averted with the key use of torture.

Countless G.I.s during WW II admitted that after they were captured by the Germans they told the enemy everything they knew under torture.

And they admitted that they told false information, told them half truths and mixed it with truth. IOW, the information was UNRELIABLE.

But that is the job of the interrogator to sort through the lies and truths to find what is needed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You would tell them anything - everything they want to hear. Truth is irrelevant, only the cessation of pain.

Which is why they tell the Truh instead of more lies, as they do not want to go through a repeat of the pain, dude.

You argue against you own position and fail to recognize it. Why? Are you running from something you failed to do?

 

[FA_Q2]

You would tell them anything - everything they want to hear. Truth is irrelevant, only the cessation of pain.

Which is why they tell the Truh instead of more lies, as they do not want to go through a repeat of the pain, dude.

You argue against you own position and fail to recognize it. Why? Are you running from something you failed to do?

*sigh*

I have already established with clear evidence why you are incorrect. I am not arguing against my own position - I am bringing up why truth is not gained or is too heavily mixed with falsehoods in a torture session.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You would tell them anything - everything they want to hear. Truth is irrelevant, only the cessation of pain.

Which is why they tell the Truh instead of more lies, as they do not want to go through a repeat of the pain, dude.

You argue against you own position and fail to recognize it. Why? Are you running from something you failed to do?

*sigh*

I have already established with clear evidence why you are incorrect. I am not arguing against my own position - I am bringing up why truth is not gained or is too heavily mixed with falsehoods in a torture session.

No, yo have established nothing, nor have you rebutted the examples of the successful use of torture as well.

You are still in the hole pretending to have talked you way out instead of doing any actual climbing.

Torture works. It worked for Wallsingham, it worked for Cortez, it worked for the Vietnamese and it will work for us as well, no matter how many times you claim to have proven it useless.

roflmao

 

[FA_Q2]

And you have cited... nothing. Just made bald faced statements. I have cited real research and inquires into tortures effectiveness.

Then you claim that I have proven nothing whereas you have proven your claims.

 

[bripat9643]

You would tell them anything - everything they want to hear. Truth is irrelevant, only the cessation of pain.

Which is why they tell the Truh instead of more lies, as they do not want to go through a repeat of the pain, dude.

You argue against you own position and fail to recognize it. Why? Are you running from something you failed to do?

*sigh*

I have already established with clear evidence why you are incorrect. I am not arguing against my own position - I am bringing up why truth is not gained or is too heavily mixed with falsehoods in a torture session.

No, yo have established nothing, nor have you rebutted the examples of the successful use of torture as well.

You are still in the hole pretending to have talked you way out instead of doing any actual climbing.

Torture works. It worked for Wallsingham, it worked for Cortez, it worked for the Vietnamese and it will work for us as well, no matter how many times you claim to have proven it useless.

roflmao

I must have missed the part where he proved it useless. Other than bleating that it doesn't work, how did he do that?