I concede that Torture "works"..not sure how well but it does work

Does that mean it should be an acceptable practice. America, before the Bush*/Cheney Cabal did not think it was. In fact America had laws against such practices, and signed into agreements with foreign countries to that end. Why has that suddenly changed. Does America really believe we should be a country that Tortures, simply because it works? Other methods work as well, and have been used exclusivly for many decades, until Bush*/Cheney and the Republican coarsening of America. Since we now believe that Torture "works" and is acceptable is there any standards at all. How much torture is acceptable? Can we pull out a persons fingernails or drill holes in their teeth? Is there any line at all any longer?

How can you still be laboring under this delusion, after all the evidence that has been pointed out over the past several yaers that it absolutely does not?

People will say *anything* to get you to stop torturing them. The information collected through torture is worthless... lies and BS shared only to get the pain to end.

Fucking hell.

is that torture does not produce any intelligence.

I believe torture produces questionable intelligence but it does produce intelligence and can be checked up on. I am certainly not an advocate for torture but the reality is that it does get people to talk. However as I said so does many other methods of interrogation. My point is that Republicans are using the argument that it produced intelligence to justify it. I am questioning whether that does indeed justify it even if it did produce real intelligence..I will concede that maybe real intelligence was indeed gathered but IMO that still does not justify the use of such techniques.

It's also illegal.

have a clear lineage that begins with these techniques being used by people who knew full well that false confessions were the end goal of these efforts. Framing opposition with false confessions has been a trick of shady governments for hundreds of years.

It is only our exquisitely crafted lie of American Exceptionalism that blinds us to this ugly truth about torture. "We don't torture!!" We happily redefine torture with distancing euphamisms like enhanced interrogation!

and because it's so difficult to help people like you see that it really does not work, we're having the discussion we're having. It has become acceptable to consider torture as a tactic.

Discussions like this are a sure sign of the debasement of American political discourse. It's tragic that we've allowed ourselves to sink so low.

It doesn't really matter whether it works or not. I will for argument sake say OK it does work. Does that justify it? The republicans are saying it does. I agree with every poster here that has stated that evidence gathered through torture is suspect at best. However there will be a time that real intelligence was obtained. If that happened would it justify it? I am trying to attack a Republican argument not justify a War Crime.

Not a single inch.

That would clear up any confusion.

Your title say "torture works" so you are going to get challenged on that. If the point is to get someone to say anything, it works. But if the point is to get useful and credible intelligence, not so much.

We should not torture. Period. It sullies the person who does it and it does not achieved the desired results in any way.

If you merely want to get someone to say what you want him to say, torture is great. If you concede that a person under torture will "say anything", how could anything he says possibly be reliable?

When several victims are clueless about one another, but they give you the same information, then it is a pretty good bet you got valid information.


And why do you concede that torture is okay if it works? Because arguing that we should not torture because it does not work concedes that very point. You just let the pro-torture side move the goalposts 99 yards in support of torture. Particularly since the best argument against your claim that torture does not work is ...

"You can't know that for certain, so we might as well torture in case you are wrong, and it does work."

Remember, you aren't trying to convince the pro-torture side. You are trying to convince EVERYONE ELSE who happens to be listening.

Unless, you actually think you *can* convince a brick wall that it is permeable. :)

:argh:

Even in the various handbooks and manuales given to soldiers in basic training it's mentioned that while torture might give you answers that they're often not true answers. When you're inflicting pain on someone they'll generally tell you what you want to hear whether it's true or not.

otherwise, not so much.

To frame political enemies and use their false confessions to bolster your political regime's lies.

Same reason Cheney wanted it used, to support his fascist and illegal agenda.

intel was gleaned prior to torture. please ignore the TV box.

before the torture started, when they gave the prisoner food or other comfort.

Once they started abusing him, they got nothing but guessing games, the poor bastard trying to figure out what they wanted to hear so they'd stop hurting him.

Cheney loved it because a tortured man will say anything and he was trying to get them to say Saddam Hussein was connected to bin Laden. That notion was so preposterous to anyone in the Middle East it took one poor guy being waterboarded 6 times a day for months until he finally figured out that's what they wanted.

Torture is evil. It doesn't work to extract useful information. All it does is give torturers a sick, twisted, thrill.

And, in fact, that's what it was used for.

people will confess to ANYTHING under duress.

even real intelligence. I am fairly certain real intelligence was indeed gathered, but does that justify the usage of such methods. While it has been proved time and time again that evidence gathered from torture can not be relied upon, it has also been proved that real intelligence has been obtained. I do not wish to argue whether all evidence is either good or bad but whether even if good does that make it acceptable.

So why not just employ non-tainted techniques that don't carry the uncertainty that facts gathered under torture get you? Why play dumb about torture's original goals of getting false testimony and confessions to smear opposition.

torture does not work.

You should be ashamed for your OP

and what about it "works," exactly?
who is "we" who "believe that torture 'works'," anyway? don't include me in that ASININE statement.
you and cheney are about the only people giving that line of bullshit any consideration at all.
the purpose of torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo was to extract FALSE CONFESSIONS. so I guess it "worked," eh? those "confessions" have really "protected" Americans, haven't they?
The purpose of torture was to make the world safer for lying, soulless, warmongering scum like dick cheney to rob, rape, and kill at will.

where were you months and months ago when this "question" was debated and found severely lacking?

Probably out testing the practicality of his theory that torture works!!!

One of the most nauseating aspects of the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Gonzales-Yoo policies is how they took ordinary soldiers off to Gitmo and trained them to be no better than our worst enemies of the 20th century.

You do understand that, don't you?

Torture is not new. There are records of Roman torture, ancient Chinese torture, Medieval European torture -- all of them inventive in the extreme. The only sure result of torture is to turn the torturer into a being we only wish was not human, and to reduce the victim to a bloody pulp who will say anything at all in hopes of making it stop.

I don't "concede" a damned thing.

Hekate

Throughout history, including recent history, it is used to make people lie. It does work at that, rather well.

Lies extracted through torture were the "intelligence" used to gain support for our invasion of Iraq.

So, yes, torture "worked".

as to who drew the picture on the wall. I generally got a confession, especially if the other two ratted on the guilty party. You may call this torture but it worked. In my opinion it would have been torture if I had beat them to get the confession.

Would you get on television and admit to being a terrorist even if you didn't consider your self a terrorist in order to make the torture stop?

Would you tell your interrogators whatever you thought they wanted to hear in order to make it stop?

If you were a terrorist or knew of a plot in which your interrogators didn't know and they tortured you for general information, would you come to hate your interrogators enough to allow a terrorist attack to take place as vengeance against them and the people they represent?

On the other hand if you had grown up having been brainwashed in to becoming a terrorist against a certain demonized people and after having been captured, they treated you humanely would this cause an internal conflict in your perceptions regarding said demonized people? Furthermore if your humanity could be reached would it become more difficult for you to condone terrorist attacks against an innocent people?

History reveals with clarity that torture works, it kills or causes harm to those who did nothing wrong, retention too comes to mind.

For those who believe in this type of madness, i offer to apply 5 minutes of torture with the assurance that you will confess to anything...

Where the FUCK do you get your news - Faux "news" :eyes:

That's EXACTLY what Cheney/Bush sought ... falsehoods to pile upon the falsehoods!

That ANYONE fails to comprehend this, and the abundant history confirming it, betrays an ignorance that makes me fear for this country.

You and Dick Cheney can keep repeating that bullshit all you want.

Torture results in the victim providing whatever words the perpetrator wishes the victim to utter. That is all it does. It forces desired behavior. What it does not do is provide reliable data. Torture is routinely used to provide confessions prior to conviction (and execution,) not to provide valuable data, but instead to satisfy legalities of process, or to provide the superficial semblance of validity to some official policy position.

p.s. the laws, including treaties, remain in effect. There are no exceptions for 'it works' or 'they are really bad people'. There is no 'ticking bomb exception'. The laws are explicit and categorical. Torture is a war crime and we are obliged to prosecute.

Because trust me, if you're being waterboarded you'll confess to whatever crime they mention. You'll confess you were part of the Manson family and kidnapped baby Lindbergh. You'll confess to shooting the sheriff (but not the deputy) just to watch him die.

Torture does not work.

It was to address the argument of the Republicans and really had nothing to do with whether torture was a proper tool or not. Republicans justify the program under the grounds that it gave the USA valuable information. Whether that is true or not is not the point. The point is, even if it is true, it does not justify Torture. I was concedeing their point for the sake of argument only that So What!. Even if every word they say is the gospel truth, which we all know Republicans are incapable of, it still in no way justifies the USA becoming a nation that endorses Torture..

But (1) that doesn't justify torture(I don't think you think it justifies it either), and (2) the classic "ticking time bomb" scenario isn't one of them, (3) other things can work much better under many circumstances.

It's become politically incorrect around here, however, to even dare suggest that torture might indeed occasionally be effective. You will get shouted down by people who act like even entertaining that thought is tantamount to advocacy.

Especially with those willing to be martyrs to a cause.

Those were the "heros" of the Catholic/Protestant wars of the 1500s. They were tortured by the other side in order to confess the true faith and save their souls. But they wouldn't do it.

Even the medieval mind should have figured that out by observing it first hand.

It does not work to make them tell the TRUTH.

The Bushies wanted the people they tortured to tell the lies they needed to uphold their story.

If they had wanted the truth, the FBI could have gotten it without torture.

all "tell you anything" arguments aside.

if someone has a particular, verifiable bit of information... torture can get it out of them.

that is why torture has been around since the beginning of recorded time.

many don't want to hear this fact. but it is true.