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

[frigidweirdo]

Our ethics include not dropping atomic bombs, not killing people unnecessarily, not torturing people, not doing many things. These aren't difficult to define, we've done it many time.

In a perfect world you're correct, problem is we're human, far from perfect.

Our world is far from perfect and mistakes occur, innocent casualties take place with the best intentions.

Mistakes happen, or "mistakes" are deliberately made?

I'm not talking about the conduct of the war, but the reasons to go to war here. The war in itself was unethical. It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate.

So why did we enter WW I & WW II?

WW2 because of the attack at Pearl Harbor. Self defense.

WW1 was more complicated.

But, do you have a point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No.

It was started with a lie. It wasn't necessary. It was done for people's pockets and not for ethical reasons.

Saddam Hussein was the Moral Authority in Iraq, he spent endless hours teaching the masses how to be a good Iraqi...

What's your point?

That evil plus evil makes good? I don't think so.

Is it really that hard for you?

Yes, it's really that hard for me to write YOUR opinions for you.

 

[Campbell]

Fewer Americans were killed under Clinton than Bush because unlike Bush, Clinton did not ignore warnings of a potential terrorist attack.

Clinton was too busy getting a BJ and sexually harassing women to notice any signs of a pending attack! The PLANNING for 9/11/01 happened on CLINTON'S watch. The terrorist pilots got their flight training on CLINTON'S watch. The investigating (afterwards) report described how they received training on how to FLY the jets but never completed the training regarding how to LAND the jets. Maybe if Clinton was using the right head at the time he would have considered that a little unusual.

AFTER 9/11/01 not another single terrorist attack on the US in the US was perpetrated. Obama, however....
Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack
Boston Marathon Bombing
Tn Recruiting Station Attack
Ca terrorist attack

Obama KNEW ahead of time that terrorists were going to attack, in Benghazi and in Boston - Obama KNEW when and by whom the attack in Benghazi was going to happen...Obama even KNEW WHO was going to perpetrate the Boston Bombing yet failed to stop either. Despite knowing exactly who had perpetrated the Boston Bombing, Obama plastered their faces on TV and asked citizens to help ID them, trying to prevent US citizens from realizing he DID know their identities and how he had f*ed up and failed to prevent the attack.

Clinton was blind because had his eyes closed, making his 'Ohhh' face while Monica was on her knees, and failed to prevent 9/11/01. Barry has kept his eyes closed to Islamic Extremism his entire 7 years in office, and yet Liberals - deathly allergic to any measure of accountability, claim ONLY BUSH is to blame.

I swear - there is NO CURE for THAT amount of partisanship and / or 'stupid'.

Again, because you're hard of learning.... Clinton thwarted the 9.11 type of attack that was planned while he was president. Who knows what more you expected of him after he left office? Who knows why you don't accept the reality that Bush failed to protect America on 9.11?

They never have gotten over the fact that after eight years of doing nothing but trying to remove Clinton from office the Republicans saw him leave office with an approval rating of 65%.

They have a major agenda.....tax cuts for the rich. That's what Bush was working diligently trying to do when Osama brought down the financial capital of the world. Bush showed them.....he not only cut taxes in 2001 but cut them some more in 2003. Then he proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. Bush said god told him to invade Iraq.....if that's the truth fuck god. Oh well....Bush will have the blood of 4500 young Americans on his hands and that doesn't even count the ones in Afghanistan.

One more thing....Bush did a 180 on Osama Bin Laden. He went from declaring that he would hunt down and kill him to this little statement:

 

[FA_Q2]

Now you may be correct there. I don't know...

Attacks are far more likely to succeed when nobody knows anything, right?

Which would mean that we need to do all we can to know, right?

Yeah, which means torturing people who have no idea about anything other than their own thing, isn't going to help, is it?

I mean, I could torture you about the 2017 Superbowl score and winning team, doesn't mean you're going to give it to me, does it?

You have a terrorist who just killed 30 people, sitting there in a chair, you ask him where he lives and who he lives with, he doesnt answer you. Awww well, lets just forget that. not important information.

You ask him who he lives with. He lives with the other people who carried out this attack. He lives in some flat somewhere. You go, you find evidence of his attack.

What you don't find is evidence of any attack that will happen in 4 months time. because they don't have any evidence that will lead to anyone who is in another cell. Because they've made it so water tight that different cells don't have any contact with each other, they might not even have the same handlers, if they do they won't know who that person is.

So, what does torture get you? It tells you there was an attack. But you knew that already.

Why do you think they've had two attacks in 4 months? Because they can't deal with the manner in which these people are operating.

"They" would include CIA, MI5, Mossad, Belgium and French secret services along with others in Europe, especially Germany.

This happens and they didn't know it was happening. For a reason. Because these guys are operating intelligently. The guys who are controlling them won't be found.

This side steps the issue that was raised. The presumption is if they managed to catch someone that did have a hand in the planning of such attacks (and those people exist) then would you condone torturing them to get that info. I assume that your answer is still a no but it really does not good demanding that such cannot be the case (that you possibly caught someone involved in the planning of another attack or has info on another cell).

 

[FA_Q2]

That's a sadism fantasy. Doesn't work.

Of course it works moron. Stop confusing your favorite torture porn with real torture.

Totally different things, dude.

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.

Zero.
Torture, aside from any ethical considerations, does not work. And we've known that for literally centuries.

Some people break, some dont. weve known that for centuries as well, but if you dont try , well your still in the Dark Ages with your info

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Attacks are far more likely to succeed when nobody knows anything, right?

Which would mean that we need to do all we can to know, right?

Yeah, which means torturing people who have no idea about anything other than their own thing, isn't going to help, is it?

I mean, I could torture you about the 2017 Superbowl score and winning team, doesn't mean you're going to give it to me, does it?

You have a terrorist who just killed 30 people, sitting there in a chair, you ask him where he lives and who he lives with, he doesnt answer you. Awww well, lets just forget that. not important information.

You ask him who he lives with. He lives with the other people who carried out this attack. He lives in some flat somewhere. You go, you find evidence of his attack.

What you don't find is evidence of any attack that will happen in 4 months time. because they don't have any evidence that will lead to anyone who is in another cell. Because they've made it so water tight that different cells don't have any contact with each other, they might not even have the same handlers, if they do they won't know who that person is.

So, what does torture get you? It tells you there was an attack. But you knew that already.

Why do you think they've had two attacks in 4 months? Because they can't deal with the manner in which these people are operating.

"They" would include CIA, MI5, Mossad, Belgium and French secret services along with others in Europe, especially Germany.

This happens and they didn't know it was happening. For a reason. Because these guys are operating intelligently. The guys who are controlling them won't be found.

This side steps the issue that was raised. The presumption is if they managed to catch someone that did have a hand in the planning of such attacks (and those people exist) then would you condone torturing them to get that info. I assume that your answer is still a no but it really does not good demanding that such cannot be the case (that you possibly caught someone involved in the planning of another attack or has info on another cell).

IS Using Brothers 'To Plan Attacks In Secret'

I found this, about family members being a team when it comes to terrorism. It keeps things really tight. You don't need other people, maybe some tight friends, but it makes it really hard when it comes to interrogation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which would mean that we need to do all we can to know, right?

Yeah, which means torturing people who have no idea about anything other than their own thing, isn't going to help, is it?

I mean, I could torture you about the 2017 Superbowl score and winning team, doesn't mean you're going to give it to me, does it?

You have a terrorist who just killed 30 people, sitting there in a chair, you ask him where he lives and who he lives with, he doesnt answer you. Awww well, lets just forget that. not important information.

You ask him who he lives with. He lives with the other people who carried out this attack. He lives in some flat somewhere. You go, you find evidence of his attack.

What you don't find is evidence of any attack that will happen in 4 months time. because they don't have any evidence that will lead to anyone who is in another cell. Because they've made it so water tight that different cells don't have any contact with each other, they might not even have the same handlers, if they do they won't know who that person is.

So, what does torture get you? It tells you there was an attack. But you knew that already.

Why do you think they've had two attacks in 4 months? Because they can't deal with the manner in which these people are operating.

"They" would include CIA, MI5, Mossad, Belgium and French secret services along with others in Europe, especially Germany.

This happens and they didn't know it was happening. For a reason. Because these guys are operating intelligently. The guys who are controlling them won't be found.

This side steps the issue that was raised. The presumption is if they managed to catch someone that did have a hand in the planning of such attacks (and those people exist) then would you condone torturing them to get that info. I assume that your answer is still a no but it really does not good demanding that such cannot be the case (that you possibly caught someone involved in the planning of another attack or has info on another cell).

IS Using Brothers 'To Plan Attacks In Secret'

I found this, about family members being a team when it comes to terrorism. It keeps things really tight. You don't need other people, maybe some tight friends, but it makes it really hard when it comes to interrogation.

No one said it wasn't hard or that there were not cells that operate in almost total anonymity. That still does not refute what I said.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals have a very broad definition of torture. Anything on the other side of appeasement whether it be offensive, hurt feelings, or otherwise, Liberals call it torture. Liberals will also tell you that people undergoing so called torture will tell you anything you want to hear after a while. In all points in between, Liberals won't or can't tell you what works; namely, how to gather or extrapolate intelligence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, which means torturing people who have no idea about anything other than their own thing, isn't going to help, is it?

I mean, I could torture you about the 2017 Superbowl score and winning team, doesn't mean you're going to give it to me, does it?

You have a terrorist who just killed 30 people, sitting there in a chair, you ask him where he lives and who he lives with, he doesnt answer you. Awww well, lets just forget that. not important information.

You ask him who he lives with. He lives with the other people who carried out this attack. He lives in some flat somewhere. You go, you find evidence of his attack.

What you don't find is evidence of any attack that will happen in 4 months time. because they don't have any evidence that will lead to anyone who is in another cell. Because they've made it so water tight that different cells don't have any contact with each other, they might not even have the same handlers, if they do they won't know who that person is.

So, what does torture get you? It tells you there was an attack. But you knew that already.

Why do you think they've had two attacks in 4 months? Because they can't deal with the manner in which these people are operating.

"They" would include CIA, MI5, Mossad, Belgium and French secret services along with others in Europe, especially Germany.

This happens and they didn't know it was happening. For a reason. Because these guys are operating intelligently. The guys who are controlling them won't be found.

This side steps the issue that was raised. The presumption is if they managed to catch someone that did have a hand in the planning of such attacks (and those people exist) then would you condone torturing them to get that info. I assume that your answer is still a no but it really does not good demanding that such cannot be the case (that you possibly caught someone involved in the planning of another attack or has info on another cell).

IS Using Brothers 'To Plan Attacks In Secret'

I found this, about family members being a team when it comes to terrorism. It keeps things really tight. You don't need other people, maybe some tight friends, but it makes it really hard when it comes to interrogation.

No one said it wasn't hard or that there were not cells that operate in almost total anonymity. That still does not refute what I said.

Torture can sometimes get information out of people. It also turns us into what? It turns us into people who condone torture. We also condone invading other countries who have resources we want.

We pretend that we're somehow better than these people. I don't see it.

If we really want to be better than these people, then we have to tell people like Trump and Dubya to get lost.

That's not to say that others are right, allowing mass immigration and causing massive social tension either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberals have a very broad definition of torture. Anything on the other side of appeasement whether it be offensive, hurt feelings, or otherwise, Liberals call it torture. Liberals will also tell you that people undergoing so called torture will tell you anything you want to hear after a while. In all points in between, Liberals won't or can't tell you what works; namely, how to gather or extrapolate intelligence.

You're talking complete crap... but then you don't care.

 

[Meathead]

It comes down to a willingness to sacrifice the lives of your own to secure a moral high ground.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

It comes down to a willingness to sacrifice the lives of your own to secure a moral high ground.

Actually, given the known fact that torture is in a purely practical sense ineffective, the moral high ground need not be surrendered to base sadism in the first place.

 

[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.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have a terrorist who just killed 30 people, sitting there in a chair, you ask him where he lives and who he lives with, he doesnt answer you. Awww well, lets just forget that. not important information.

You ask him who he lives with. He lives with the other people who carried out this attack. He lives in some flat somewhere. You go, you find evidence of his attack.

What you don't find is evidence of any attack that will happen in 4 months time. because they don't have any evidence that will lead to anyone who is in another cell. Because they've made it so water tight that different cells don't have any contact with each other, they might not even have the same handlers, if they do they won't know who that person is.

So, what does torture get you? It tells you there was an attack. But you knew that already.

Why do you think they've had two attacks in 4 months? Because they can't deal with the manner in which these people are operating.

"They" would include CIA, MI5, Mossad, Belgium and French secret services along with others in Europe, especially Germany.

This happens and they didn't know it was happening. For a reason. Because these guys are operating intelligently. The guys who are controlling them won't be found.

This side steps the issue that was raised. The presumption is if they managed to catch someone that did have a hand in the planning of such attacks (and those people exist) then would you condone torturing them to get that info. I assume that your answer is still a no but it really does not good demanding that such cannot be the case (that you possibly caught someone involved in the planning of another attack or has info on another cell).

IS Using Brothers 'To Plan Attacks In Secret'

I found this, about family members being a team when it comes to terrorism. It keeps things really tight. You don't need other people, maybe some tight friends, but it makes it really hard when it comes to interrogation.

No one said it wasn't hard or that there were not cells that operate in almost total anonymity. That still does not refute what I said.

Torture can sometimes get information out of people. It also turns us into what? It turns us into people who condone torture. We also condone invading other countries who have resources we want.

We pretend that we're somehow better than these people. I don't see it.

If we really want to be better than these people, then we have to tell people like Trump and Dubya to get lost.

That's not to say that others are right, allowing mass immigration and causing massive social tension either.

Again, you are commenting on something that I never stated and arguing a point I have not made. Look again, my comments were specifically narrow to ONLY address the single point that I made in that post. My other comments address what you are referring to here.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals have a very broad definition of torture. Anything on the other side of appeasement whether it be offensive, hurt feelings, or otherwise, Liberals call it torture. Liberals will also tell you that people undergoing so called torture will tell you anything you want to hear after a while. In all points in between, Liberals won't or can't tell you what works; namely, how to gather or extrapolate intelligence.

You're talking complete crap... but then you don't care.

You're talking opinion with no basis in fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh just for record...

...how do you know he WASN'T tortured? Prove it.

Just curious, did anyone prove it?

 

[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?

Clinton is correct.

There is no evidence torture will garner the desired results, or that any information obtained by torture is accurate or useful.

Torture is illegal.

When we torture, the terrorists win.

We as a people are better than that.

Only about 5000 years of warfare and recorded history shows that torture works. Anyone who claims otherwise is the worst kind of fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[American_Jihad]

A Preventable Atrocity in Brussels
Why were the jihadist killers not stopped in time?
March 25, 2016
Joseph Klein

The suicide bombings at the Brussels airport and a train station on March 22nd resulted in at least 31 deaths and approximately 300 wounded. ISIS took responsibility for the slaughter of innocent civilians, which had all the hallmarks of the carefully planned and coordinated multi-pronged Paris attacks it launched last November. The Brussels attacks occurred a few days after the arrest last week of Salah Abdeslam, who was involved in the Paris massacres and was in the midst of planning more attacks in his home country of Belgium. Abdeslam was a master recruiter for ISIS, tapping associates from his childhood home in the jihadist neighborhood of Brussels known as Molenbeek, where planning for the Paris attacks had been carried out.

"Not only did he drop out of sight, but he did so to organize another attack, with accomplices everywhere,” said French Senator Nathalie Goulet, co-head of a commission tracking jihadi networks, as quoted by the Associated Press.

The Brussels operation was already well along in the planning phase before Abdeslam’s arrest. However, his accomplices evidently accelerated the timetable after his arrest.They wanted to make sure that attacks resulting in a large number of civilian casualties were successfully carried out before the Belgian authorities could act on any information they were gleaning from Abdeslam.

Two of the bombers who blew themselves up with sophisticated explosives designed to inflict significant death and destruction were Belgian-born brothers. They were Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui, aged 29 and 27 respectively. A third suicide bomber was 24-year-old Moroccan-born Najim Laachraoui. Another unidentified man escaped without setting off his bomb and is being hunted by Belgian authorities. It has been reported that authorities suspect other accomplices may have been involved, who are still at lodge.

...

A Preventable Atrocity in Brussels

When they catch the others, they should waterboard the shit out of them...