Waterboarding is Torture...Period

I’m confused. Help me out fellows.

Why would somebody who would willingly blow him/herself up (along with numerous passer-bys) blink under torture?

I’m comfortable with waterboarding them. I’m comfortable with boarding them to save a captured soldier or civilian about to get his/her head removed. I’m comfortable with waterboarding to keep a couple dozen (maybe hundreds) people from being turned into chunks of meat and gristle by a suicide bomber. My name is Sloth, and I flat out support torture of this nature, for preventing acts such as the above.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m confused. Help me out fellows.

Why would somebody who would willingly blow him/herself up (along with numerous passer-bys) blink under torture?[/quote]

Because being blown up is over in…well, instantly.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
emdawgz1 wrote:
The reason we shouldnt torture isnt because we fear them torturing our soldiers.

The reason we shouldnt torture is because its wrong.

Yup, simple answer. We’re the good guys. The good guys don’t torture. That said…

“Enhanced interrogation” is an inefficient means of gaining intelligence. It produces bad intel. It’s a political minefield. (please dont tell me politics arent important, because all war is politics)And its wrong.

Why can’t you admit that torture works? You can admit that torture works and still disagree with its use. Be bold and take a noble stance.

mike

It doesn’t work, or it doesn’t work well, no need to even get to the ethics.

Now I’m anti-torture. I’m also clear in believing that water boarding is torture, but you cheapen our argument when you claim it doesn’t work. It is a proven documented historical fact. It’s okay to admit it works. When you claim it doesn’t work you come across as a fool and lose credibility in attacking it on moral grounds where it should be fought.

mike[/quote]

Works at what? If you’re getting “witches” to confess, well yeah it works great, if your after solid intel, then no it doesn’t work.

Now you were saying something about Gen. Petraeus not having crediblity and sounding like a fool?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m comfortable with waterboarding them. I’m comfortable with boarding them to save a captured soldier or civilian about to get his/her head removed. I’m comfortable with waterboarding to keep a couple dozen (maybe hundreds) people from being turned into chunks of meat and gristle by a suicide bomber. My name is Sloth, and I flat out support torture of this nature, for preventing acts such as the above. [/quote]

Since other methods might be more effective/and certainly more reliable, why not use them instead?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m comfortable with waterboarding them. I’m comfortable with boarding them to save a captured soldier or civilian about to get his/her head removed. I’m comfortable with waterboarding to keep a couple dozen (maybe hundreds) people from being turned into chunks of meat and gristle by a suicide bomber. My name is Sloth, and I flat out support torture of this nature, for preventing acts such as the above.

Since other methods might be more effective/and certainly more reliable, why not use them instead?[/quote]

When it’s possible. Otherwise, waterboard.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Works at what? If you’re getting “witches” to confess, well yeah it works great, if your after solid intel, then no it doesn’t work.
[/quote]

Let me explain how this works. I’m torturing you to find out who took the cookie from the cookie jar. For some damn reason everyone keeps saying not me. So, I’m torturing you and to get me to stop you say that Billy took the cookie from the cookie jar. I know for a fact that Billy didn’t do it, so now you’re still going to be tortured. You say that Cindy took the cookie but I know that Cindy didn’t do it.

So now you’re still getting tortured until I get a name that I have other evidence to think may have done it. This isn’t damning of the person you name, but it is evidence gathered. Torture works only with a proper line of questioning and only in limited circumstances. This of course does not justify its use, only that it works.

I do recant the use of the word “fool”. You got me, I was wrong. Well played Hundo.

mike

It works when you have someone whom you know possesses information that you want. Particularly in the case of someone who possesses information that you want, and who knows he will remain in your control and who knows that you will soon validate the information.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?

We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?
[/quote]

What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Sure it is, but torture, I am afraid, is a necessary evil in some circumstances. It has been an effective practice at extracting information from unwilling informants since the beginning of man.

That being said, it should be used sparingly and on “high value” informants.

This should end the thread.

Why, because it’s not true?
Torture has been effective at extracting (usually false) confessions, not information, in fact that’s specifically what our enemies have used it for.

Also just about everybody in a uniform disagrees with you.
for example:

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone �??talk�??; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding

weird huh?
it’s like the oppostite of what you said.
And when I said this before you’ll remember you called me a liar.
Of course I realize this isn’t fair because you don’t what you’re talking about.
[/quote]

Petraeus does not classify waterboarding as torture so I am not sure what your point is.

[quote]milesahead44 wrote:

And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.
[/quote]

Curious to say ask McCain, when McCain is so anti torture despite being a victim of it.

[quote]Magnate wrote:
milesahead44 wrote:

And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.

Curious to say ask McCain, when McCain is so anti torture despite being a victim of it.[/quote]

That is his point. Our enemies torture.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m confused. Help me out fellows.

Why would somebody who would willingly blow him/herself up (along with numerous passer-bys) blink under torture?[/quote]

Torture comes with no guarantee of death or promise of after-life pussy, whereas blowing themselves up they die instantly (and one would assume painlessly, but I’m not about to test it) with hopes of a little cloud sex.

Torture = all the pain of the innocents they harm, none of the reward

To quote Bill Maher:

“Promising pussy in the afterlife, is the lowest thing I have ever heard”

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Magnate wrote:
milesahead44 wrote:

And if you think our enimies don’t torture you either don’t know history (ask J Mcain, Batahn death march) or are a fool.

Curious to say ask McCain, when McCain is so anti torture despite being a victim of it.

That is his point. Or enemies torture.[/quote]

I was just remarking on how the rest of his post was pro torture yet cited McCain, not that he was wrong about our enemies torturing. Nobody denies that our enemies torture people. Where is this fake argument even starting from? The argument is whether torture works and whether it will have adverse effects (i.e. more muslims seek out terrorist groups as a form of retaliation to the torture.)

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
100meters wrote:
Works at what? If you’re getting “witches” to confess, well yeah it works great, if your after solid intel, then no it doesn’t work.

Let me explain how this works. I’m torturing you to find out who took the cookie from the cookie jar. For some damn reason everyone keeps saying not me. So, I’m torturing you and to get me to stop you say that Billy took the cookie from the cookie jar. I know for a fact that Billy didn’t do it, so now you’re still going to be tortured. You say that Cindy took the cookie but I know that Cindy didn’t do it.

So now you’re still getting tortured until I get a name that I have other evidence to think may have done it. This isn’t damning of the person you name, but it is evidence gathered. Torture works only with a proper line of questioning and only in limited circumstances. This of course does not justify its use, only that it works.

[/quote]

You just explained exactly why torture doesn’t work, at all. Twice I gave you names that were impossible, just to give you a name. What makes you think the third or fourth or fifth will suddenly be reliable? Because I’ll eventually stumble on a name that you don’t already know is innocent?

What makes more sense, if you’re a terrorist being tortured… give correct information and mess up all the plans… or send troops on a wild goose chase, thus taking them farther away from actually saving the lives they intend to save?

Can you cite a few documented examples of intel gathered through waterboarding (or similar methods) that resulted in actually saving lives?

You guys that claim it doesn’t work are kidding yourselves.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You just explained exactly why torture doesn’t work, at all. Twice I gave you names that were impossible, just to give you a name. What makes you think the third or fourth or fifth will suddenly be reliable? Because I’ll eventually stumble on a name that you don’t already know is innocent?
[/quote]

sigh No, I wait until you give me a name that I already have evidence MIGHT be the guy I’m after. As I said, having your name said when someone is being tortured isn’t damning. It’s simply another red flag. I’m done arguing this anyways. I don’t believe in torture so I’m wasting my breath arguing this point when I agree on the endgame anyhow.

mike

So, all in favor of water-boarding say aye. All against say nay.

Nay, we’re supposed to be the good guys. Good guys don’t torture.

[quote]milesahead44 wrote:
Waterboarding seemed to work well on this turd.
He sang like a canary

[/quote]
No, it didn’t. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to what he was told to (maybe he did all of it, but who knows) but we got no good intel. In terms of preventing attacks, this was worthless. He admitted to planning a raft of terrorist incidents but the plans were incredibly vague (most likely he was just making shit up to please his torturers).

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You just explained exactly why torture doesn’t work, at all. Twice I gave you names that were impossible, just to give you a name. What makes you think the third or fourth or fifth will suddenly be reliable? Because I’ll eventually stumble on a name that you don’t already know is innocent?[/quote]

How to Explain Zero-Knowledge Protocols to Your Children

It is common practice to label the two parties in a zero-knowledge proof as Peggy (the prover of the statement) and Victor (the verifier of the statement). Sometimes P and V are known instead as Pat and Vanna.

In this story, Peggy has uncovered the secret word used to open a magic door in a cave. The cave is shaped like a circle, with the entrance in one side and the magic door blocking the opposite side. Victor says he’ll pay her for the secret, but not until he’s sure that she really knows it. Peggy says she’ll tell him the secret, but not until she receives the money. They devise a scheme by which Peggy can prove that she knows the word without telling it to Victor.

First, Victor waits outside the cave as Peggy goes in. We label the left and right paths from the entrance A and B. She randomly takes either path A or B. Then, Victor enters the cave and shouts the name of the path he wants her to use to return, either A or B, chosen at random. Providing she really does know the magic word, this is easy: she opens the door, if necessary, and returns along the desired path. Note that Victor does not know which path she has gone down.

However, suppose she does not know the word. Then, she can only return by the named path if Victor gives the name of the same path that she entered by. Since Victor chooses A or B at random, she has a 50% chance of guessing correctly. If they repeat this trick many times, say 20 times in a row, her chance of successfully anticipating all of Victor’s requests becomes vanishingly small, and Victor should be convinced that she knows the secret.

Jean-Jacques Quisquater, Louis C. Guillou, Thomas A. Berson. How to Explain Zero-Knowledge Protocols to Your Children. Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO '89: Proceedings, v.435, p.628-631, 1990.

This is very much akin to the old ‘prior assumptions’ trick. If I ask you, “Who took the cookies from the cookie jar?” And you say, “Cindy”. Suddenly, I know there is a cookie jar with cookies and I know that you do too, I know you know Cindy, etc. Whether Cindy is the right answer or not is rather inconsequential. Additionally, greater physical stress aids this process as you are less likely to develop and maintain contrived scenarios.

In case you didn’t know, considering the broad definition of torture (e.g. standing, heat, barking dogs), I’m generally pro-torture as part of the interrogation process. I don’t believe in wanton torture and I don’t think anyone should conduct procedures that they haven’t been subject to themselves and the informant’s physical health should be paramount (which is kind of the idea anyway). IMO, in the statistical sense, interrogation without torture is very insensitive, excessive torture sacrifices specificity. True interrogative power, on average, will require a balance.