Should we bring back torture?

[Johann]

President Trump, during his campaign, called for bringing back torture.





He has appointed several people to his cabinet that have in the past spoke positively on torturing terrorists.

Personally, i think that's fucking great. Any ISIS guy we find should be dealt with in such a manner.

What do you think folks, should we burn these ISIS guys alive?

 

[miketx]

Reading some of the lib stupid here and elsewhere is torture. But to answer, I don't know.

 

[yiostheoy]

The best kind of torture is simply deprivation.

Deprivation of shelter.

Deprivation of clothing.

Deprivation of warmth.

Deprivation of food.

Deprivation of water.

Deprivation of sleep.

In carefully controlled applications these will eventually wear down anyone, especially with a good cop / bad cop dual interrogation procedure.

If you need to find out anything from anyone, these measures will give you success.

Works like a charm.

You need to be careful because the human body can only tolerate so many hours of cold, so many days of dehydration, so many weeks of malnutrition.

And if any medical issues arise, then you need to stop the measures and treat the disease to allow recuperation in order to continue the measures with the interrogation.

The CIA is really good at this. Bring it back -- sure.

More aggressive torture like partial drowning or beatings I would not bring back however.

 

[miketx]

Deprivation of blood pressure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bring back?

Are you naive enough to think we ever stopped?

 

[yiostheoy]

Bring back?

Are you naive enough to think we ever stopped?

Well they are claiming on tv that the CIA has stopped.

I don't have any insider information on that one way or the other.

If I were a CIA operative (I was once offered the job but turned it down) I would utilize controlled "torture" as I outlined above to find out what I need to from anyone I am interrogating.

You need to go easier on females than males, because their bodies are more frail.

And it may work better to have female interrogators for females, and male interrogators for males, unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Deprivation of blood pressure.

You don't want to lose your subject to death.

And it is not morally ethical to deprive them of their body parts for the sake of torture.

Blood is a body part.

If you took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, then no cruel or unusual punishments are acceptable. Cutting is a cruel and unusual punishment and the phrase in those times (1700's) referred to British drawing-and-quartering. So if you take your oath seriously then you won't do those things.

If a subject (of interrogation) knows they are going to die then they won't tell you anything, if they have been trained right. Death is a reliever from pain and torture. So if you administer death you have defeated your own purpose. You are not assigned to be an executioner. You are an interrogator.

It is the sheer weight of depravation and the pain of it that makes subjects give in, no matter how hard they have been trained.

 

[GLASNOST]

Should we bring back torture?

What do you mean, "bring back"? What do you think they were doing at Abu Graib and Guantanamo?

 

[Bleipriester]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

 

[bripat9643]

President Trump, during his campaign, called for bringing back torture.





He has appointed several people to his cabinet that have in the past spoke positively on torturing terrorists.

Personally, i think that's fucking great. Any ISIS guy we find should be dealt with in such a manner.

What do you think folks, should we burn these ISIS guys alive?

We should put anyone who registers as a Democrat on the rack until they are 3 inches taller.

 

[bripat9643]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

The purpose of torture isn't to determine the guilt or innocence of the subject. The purpose is to obtain information that can save the lives of Americans.

 

[GLASNOST]

Well they are claiming on tv that the CIA has stopped.

I don't have any insider information on that one way or the other.

If I were a CIA operative (I was once offered the job but turned it down) I would utilize controlled "torture" as I outlined above to find out what I need to from anyone I am interrogating.

You need to go easier on females than males, because their bodies are more frail.

And it may work better to have female interrogators for females, and male interrogators for males, unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.

"controlled torture"? The CIA calls water boarding "controlled torture". International law and the Geneva Convention Rules call it ILLEGAL.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well they are claiming on tv that the CIA has stopped.

I don't have any insider information on that one way or the other.

If I were a CIA operative (I was once offered the job but turned it down) I would utilize controlled "torture" as I outlined above to find out what I need to from anyone I am interrogating.

You need to go easier on females than males, because their bodies are more frail.

And it may work better to have female interrogators for females, and male interrogators for males, unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.

"controlled torture"? The CIA calls water boarding "controlled torture". International law and the Geneva Convention Rules call it ILLEGAL.

I don't like water boarding either.

It works faster, but there is a risk of killing the subject, so that's why I don't like it.

And it leads to lung infections, which is a disease, so you then need to stop the interrogation and heal the disease before you can continue.

Deprivation is a bit slower but it works every time.

 

[yiostheoy]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

You have failed to define torture in your syllogism.

Hence you have a fallacy statement.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Bleipriester]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

The purpose of torture isn't to determine the guilt or innocence of the subject. The purpose is to obtain information that can save the lives of Americans.

Both have been practiced and what I brought up applies for both unless you have one who you know knows something you need to save lives. If you want to "work" on terrorists you must be very careful to first not to become one of their kind and second on whom you "work". See what easily can happen:

 

[my2¢]

I'm against it purely for the sake of our men and women in military who will be further exposed to retaliation.

 

[Bleipriester]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

You have failed to define torture in your syllogism.

Hence you have a fallacy statement.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

What are you talking about? I did not even intent to define torture.

 

[yiostheoy]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

The purpose of torture isn't to determine the guilt or innocence of the subject. The purpose is to obtain information that can save the lives of Americans.

Both have been practiced and what I brought up applies for both unless you have one who you know knows something you need to save lives. If you want to "work" on terrorists you must be very careful to first not to become one of their kind and second on whom you "work". See what easily can happen:

I still think you need to define your terms better before you offer a carte blanche opinion of your own.

Your failure to do so is a classic fallacy.

Females make this mistake a lot in their argumentation.

If you are female than this explains it.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

You have failed to define torture in your syllogism.

Hence you have a fallacy statement.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

What are you talking about? I did not even intent to define torture.

Like I said, your carte blanche opinion is a classic fallacy without better definitions.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[GLASNOST]

Torture is a critical issue. If you don´t know the suspect is guilty, torture can never be a legitimate measure. If you know the suspect is guilty but can only bring up a torture-confession, a court cannot accept this confession.

Absolutely correct.

The purpose of torture isn't to determine the guilt or innocence of the subject. The purpose is to obtain information that can save the lives of Americans.

Let's use me as a very realistic example. If I am being tortured, all I need to know is what they want me to say .... and that's what I will tell them. I don't think my "forced confession" is going to save anyone's life - probably be the cause of someone's death.

Bleipriester is right. Gaining information through 'torture can never be a legitimate measure'.