Should we bring back torture?

[yiostheoy]

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

This is a modern fallacy.

It is like saying we should not shoot bullets at the enemy because we do not want the enemy to shoot bullets at us.

John McCain is trapped in this fallacy as well.

He was never the brightest bulb in the chandelier however. Never was and never will be.

I suggest you not imitate John McCain.

 

[GLASNOST]

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

Or to put it another way .... 'what goes around, comes around'.

 

[Bleipriester]

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

This is a modern fallacy.

It is like saying we should not shoot bullets at the enemy because we do not want the enemy to shoot bullets at us.

John McCain is trapped in this fallacy as well.

He was never the brightest bulb in the chandelier however. Never was and never will be.

I suggest you not imitate John McCain.

Yeah! Don´t shoot bullets in the first place. Good step to begin with!

 

[yiostheoy]

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...

First, you yourself would not make a very good interrogator, so make sure you don't quit your other day job.

Second, when you interrogate, you first isolate, then you deprive, then you ask for details.

You do not lead the witness (so to speak).

Thus the subject of the interrogation is forced to cough up facts, not lies.

Third, you continue the process over and over under extreme stress so that the subject's mind can only recall the truth not the lies.

Fourth, your transcribers cross reference the subjects statements and you continue to interrogate until you have ferretted out all the lies.

Those are things you yourself simply know nothing about.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yeah! Don´t shoot bullets in the first place. Good step to begin with!

Fokking pacifist hippy.

 

[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.

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:

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Anyone who claims torture doesn't work is a moron. 5000 years of recorded history prove otherwise. The U.S. practiced torture in WW II and in Vietnam.

 

[cnm]

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

Ah, Nuremberg.

 

[cnm]

The U.S. practiced torture in WW II and in Vietnam.

Got lots of confessions too, I bet.

 

[cnm]

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Torture is a means of getting confessions. They don't need to be verified.

 

[bripat9643]

The U.S. practiced torture in WW II and in Vietnam.

Got lots of confessions too, I bet.

As I previously explained, confessions aren't the purpose of torture.

You're a moron.

 

[GLASNOST]

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...

First, you yourself would not make a very good interrogator, so make sure you don't quit your other day job.

Second, when you interrogate, you first isolate, then you deprive, then you ask for details.

You do not lead the witness (so to speak).

Thus the subject of the interrogation is forced to cough up facts, not lies.

Third, you continue the process over and over under extreme stress so that the subject's mind can only recall the truth not the lies.

Fourth, your transcribers cross reference the subjects statements and you continue to interrogate until you have ferretted out all the lies.

Those are things you yourself simply know nothing about.

Is English not your language?

 

[bripat9643]

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Torture is a means of getting confessions. They don't need to be verified.

Wrong, moron. Only ISIS tortures to get a confession.

 

[Dr Grump]

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Torture is a means of getting confessions. They don't need to be verified.

Wrong, moron. Only ISIS tortures to get a confession.

You mean Abu Ghraib was just a figment of my imagination my little, fat, bald friend?

 

[Theowl32]

I say let's torture liberals, just for the fun of it. Not to mention for them being such unreal pieces of lying hypocritical shit.

 

[CowboyTed]

Lets escape from the fact that it doesn't work....

 

[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:

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Anyone who claims torture doesn't work is a moron. 5000 years of recorded history prove otherwise. The U.S. practiced torture in WW II and in Vietnam.

If someone is being tortured who doesn´t have the wanted information, how long should he suffer?

 

[yiostheoy]

The claim that torture doesn't work is bullshit. If the information obtained can be verified, which it almost always can, then the subject will give it up because he knows failure to do so means more torture.

Torture is a means of getting confessions. They don't need to be verified.

Wrong, moron. Only ISIS tortures to get a confession.

You mean Abu Ghraib was just a figment of my imagination my little, fat, bald friend?

GLASNOST , she/he thinks you are little and fat.

 

[yiostheoy]

Lets escape from the fact that it doesn't work....

Works like a charm when you do it right.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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?

Instead of water boarding, just put the terrorists in a cell, with Obama speeches playing 24/7. After a week of listing to the boring in chief, they would want to spill the beans real quick. I am tortured every time he comes on TV and immediately turn away from that channel to find something more interesting.

 

[Kondor3]

Should we bring back torture?

It never disappeared.

What do you think it's called, listening to whiny pussified little LibTard bitches, mewling about it?

That, too, is torture.