Where do you stand on torture?

[GPDP]

Just thought I'd open up a little discussion on the merits of torture. I decided to make the thread here in OI to get the OIers' take on things.

I am completely against torture in both principled and practical grounds. I believe it to be a cruel and inhuman practice, as well as an extremely inefficient way to gather information. That is, I would never condone it, even if it was "our side" doing it to our enemies.

[Skooma Addict]

Just thought I'd open up a little discussion on the merits of torture. I decided to make the thread here in OI to get the OIers' take on things.

I am completely against torture in both principled and practical grounds. I believe it to be a cruel and inhuman practice, as well as an extremely inefficient way to gather information. That is, I would never condone it, even if it was "our side" doing it to our enemies.

I am very much against torture. It is absolutely disgusting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In addition to finding it personally distasteful, it's also pretty fucking useless as method of gathering information - the torture victim will tell the torturer what they want to hear, in order for the torture to stop.

[Abc]

against all torture no exceptions, if the persons deserves death then it sould be a quick shot to the head, and torturing for infomation it is stupid because most people will say anything to stop the pain after being tortured long enough even if they are innocent or dont know anything

[RotStern]

against all torture no exceptions, if the persons deserves death then it sould be a quick shot to the head, and torturing for infomation it is stupid because most people will say anything to stop the pain after being tortured long enough even if they are innocent or dont know anything

Exactly! Torture has not had many positive results in the past and It probably will not ever.
I would think that after hundred of years of torturing people for information people would finally find out that its a bunch of fucking bullshit.:cursing:

[GPDP]

Poll added.

[Abc]

sorry if i offend anyone but anybody who votes "Torture should be applied liberally for quick and effective information gathering and punishment" is sick

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Can torture acquire information that would not have been obtained otherwise, or as quickly? I don't know. If yes, I'm supportive of using it in ticking time bomb scenarios.

[Kukulofori]

The only time torture comes up is when there are lives at stake, as in your side is killing people too. once you're at the point of killing people it's a little late to start worrying about the morality of the situation. It's basically a rhetorical liberal issue.

[mikelepore]

For years the media like CNN and Fox have held panel discussions on this issue by posing the "ticking timebomb scenario." An atomic bomb is about to blow up the city. You have a prisoner who certainly knows the location of the bomb but refuses to talk. Should you force the prisoner to talk? The whole discussion is a fake. In real life the scenario is: the army has rounded up hundreds of random people only because they were found in a given perimeter. They are _accused_ or _suspected_ of being terrorists, or possibly knowing some terrorists. There is no certainty that they know anything that you might be interested in hearing. Should you force them to talk? The TV commentators know damn well that this is the debate, and yet they keep talking about the hypothetical prisoner who certainly knows the location of a ticking timebomb. I haven't heard any criticism of the media personnel for intentionally promoting this obfuscation. The TV networks always tend to move in the direction of the question "what would sell most profitably if all of the viewership consisted of idiots?"

[GPDP]

You're very spot-on, mike. That the media (and not just on the news channels, but also everyday television shows such as 24) narrows down the discussion and force-feeds us the "ticking time bomb" scenario down our throats and make it seem as if torture is acceptable and effective in such situations does not help matters.

I suggest anyone not convinced of the futility of torture read Alfred McCoy's excellent book "A Question of Torture."

[Jazzratt]

sorry if i offend anyone but anybody who votes "Torture should be applied liberally for quick and effective information gathering and punishment" is sick

Don't apologise, if you offend someone of that opinion they deserve it.

Naturally the debate will often come down to ridiculous hypotheticals like the ticking bomb, but these have been crafted over years to serve the interest of the (mostly pro-torture) status-quo.

Another problem with torture is it perpetuates itself by being such a shit method of getting information. You get bad information from one torturee, so next time you torture a bunch of people so that you can check if their stories corrobarerate. Something goes wrong with that for whatever reason and pretty soon you're sitting in abu-ghraib up to your arsehole in mostly innocent people who get to experience the feeling of drowning or whatever. It's like a merry-go-round. Only you're torturing people.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As much as it's interesting to study medieval torture methods it's an inhumane practice. If somebody doesn't want to give information they clearly shouldn't be forced to. That information obtained is obviously used under bourgeois law to represent bourgeois interests. They'll do anything to protect their system and this is pure proof. Gitmo is a perfect example, having contained innocents who are supposibly "terrorists".

[Havet]

Against torture. The usual argument for torture is that its ok to harm a terrorist to save lives. Of course, one is never SURE the terrorist has actual information. If they did, they wouldn't need to torture him.

[Conquer or Die]

Against it, obviously. Too many left wing groups use torture and intimidation.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm against it. If you need to turture people to get your particular political agenda across there's a good chance you don't have a worthwhile agenda to begin with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario fundamentally flawed? Doesn't the terrorist merely have to hold out long enough for the bomb to go off?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Isn't the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario fundamentally flawed? Doesn't the terrorist merely have to hold out long enough for the bomb to go off?

True, but torture is the difference between doing nothing and doing something. Torture is extremely barbarous. I would think it would difficult if not impossible to hold out on certain methods of torture.

[Il Medico]

True, but torture is the difference between doing nothing and doing something. Torture is extremely barbarous. I would think it would difficult if not impossible to hold out on certain methods of torture.
Torture anybody long enough and they will tell you the sky is orange. In the middle ages, during the black death, fanatical Christians in Germany rounded up Jews and tortured them until they confessed to poisoning the wells. Torture is less reliable as a means of gathering information than Wikipedia.

[Radical]

I think torture probably works to some extent. Otherwise Government's wouldent continue to use it. However I'm against it.

[Comrade B]

Even if torture were efficient at getting information, it should never be applied, to anyone. No matter how horrible.
If people are terribly evil, shoot them. If they are disturbed or trained to mindless obedience, keep them imprisoned until they can be fixed or comfortably die of old age.

[Misanthrope]

Barbaric, inhumane, poor tactic for collecting information.

[Kronos]

It depends. I might stand in front of the guy as I'm beating him. Sometimes I might even stand on him.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Even if torture were efficient at getting information, it should never be applied, to anyone. No matter how horrible.
I would agree with this. Doesn't matter how good it is at getting information. I don't believe in evil but torture is the closest thing to it.

[danyboy27]

if torture would actually work, well i would have voted yes.

but hoo well, it dosnt work so no.

[*Red*Alert]

In addition to finding it personally distasteful, it's also pretty fucking useless as method of gathering information - the torture victim will tell the torturer what they want to hear, in order for the torture to stop.
Yep, I agree.

It's horrible I can tell you, having liaised with many refugees who've survived actual torture and still have the scars to prove it. In the majority of cases it severely damages the mind of the torturer as well, generally where State officials are involved leading to breakdowns and suicides years afterwards, usually in cases where officials were carrying out orders.

Other than to inflict pain and suffering on a victim, it is pointless.

[danyboy27]

i have been thinking about it and perhaps torture could be efficient, but in order to do that a verry advanced psychological test should be done, some people wont talk, other will.
people with a strong mind shouldnt be tortured, mainly beccause its just a waste of time, weak people can talk, or at least be bribed.

[*Red*Alert]

i have been thinking about it and perhaps torture could be efficient, but in order to do that a verry advanced psychological test should be done, some people wont talk, other will.
people with a strong mind shouldnt be tortured, mainly beccause its just a waste of time, weak people can talk, or at least be bribed.

What you suggest seems impossible. Even individual has a different capacity for pain, both physical and psychological, and I don't know if its possible to measure or detect that.

Nelson Mandela did 27 years in prison without caving in and reneging on his commitment to a non-racialist South Africa, even after being offered freedom several times as well as a decent life unavailable to most of his race. And that was one hell of a brutal and violent regime.

[danyboy27]

What you suggest seems impossible. Even individual has a different capacity for pain, both physical and psychological, and I don't know if its possible to measure or detect that.

Nelson Mandela did 27 years in prison without caving in and reneging on his commitment to a non-racialist South Africa, even after being offered freedom several times as well as a decent life unavailable to most of his race. And that was one hell of a brutal and violent regime.

he was strong, that why

[MarxSchmarx]

In general I believe in nonviolence, and hence I am of course against torture as a matter of principle. However, plenty of people who disagree with nonviolence also oppose torture. This, to me, does not make much sense. There is no such thing as a "humane" killing of another person.

[GPDP]

"Weak" people can and do divulge accurate information through other, much more humane means (the FBI's method of verbal interrogation wherein they establish a connection to the prisoner and attempt to gain his or her trust so that they divulge information, for one). In fact, the vast majority of relevant, accurate information is usually divulged before a person is tortured.

danyboy, I highly suggest you read the book I recommended. It completely destroys the myth that torture works to divulge good information from select individuals. The only time it ever works to gain good information is when it is applied to a wide population, and that is never a good thing to do, even by right-wing standards, because it breeds resentment and can cause tremendous political costs. Only a fascist would have no problem with this.

[brigadista]

its barbaric , useless and damaging to the lives of those tortured [if they survive]and their families

[danyboy27]

"Weak" people can and do divulge accurate information through other, much more humane means (the FBI's method of verbal interrogation wherein they establish a connection to the prisoner and attempt to gain his or her trust so that they divulge information, for one). In fact, the vast majority of relevant, accurate information is usually divulged before a person is tortured.

danyboy, I highly suggest you read the book I recommended. It completely destroys the myth that torture works to divulge good information from select individuals. The only time it ever works to gain good information is when it is applied to a wide population, and that is never a good thing to do, even by right-wing standards, because it breeds resentment and can cause tremendous political costs. Only a fascist would have no problem with this.

well, mass torture dosnt work i am pretty sure, but still.
when i said torture i meant psychological ones, you know, you discover x individual is affraid of spider, and when he acting cocky you face him to his fear.

i dont think torture is actually an option, i just suggered that maybe with a valid psychological bill, certain people might talk if tortured, i dont think every prisonner should be tortured.

everyone have its weakness, hopefully most of people weakness dosnt require torture to be exploited.

[GPDP]

well, mass torture dosnt work i am pretty sure, but still.
when i said torture i meant psychological ones, you know, you discover x individual is affraid of spider, and when he acting cocky you face him to his fear.

i dont think torture is actually an option, i just suggered that maybe with a valid psychological bill, certain people might talk if tortured, i dont think every prisonner should be tortured.

everyone have its weakness, hopefully most of people weakness dosnt require torture to be exploited.

Um, psychological torture is still torture. In fact, it is arguably a more severe type of torture than the physical kind. People have been completely and utterly broken in a single day through mere sensory deprivation to the point that it would have taken weeks of brute physical torture to do the same.

[danyboy27]

Um, psychological torture is still torture. In fact, it is arguably a more severe type of torture than the physical kind. People have been completely and utterly broken in a single day through mere sensory deprivation to the point that it would have taken weeks of brute physical torture to do the same.

if you break something, you fix it, if you damaged the guy mentally, then work it out with psychiatrists to make him the way he was.

[GPDP]

if you break something, you fix it, if you damaged the guy mentally, then work it out with psychiatrists to make him the way he was.

It doesn't work that way. What makes you think the people willing to go to such lengths to acquire information (which, as I've said, primarily comes in spite of torture, not because of it) would be willing to "fix" that person?

You've yet to present any evidence for the efficacy of torture as an efficient means of gathering good information, in any case.

[danyboy27]

It doesn't work that way. What makes you think the people willing to go to such lengths to acquire information (which, as I've said, primarily comes in spite of torture, not because of it) would be willing to "fix" that person?

You've yet to present any evidence for the efficacy of torture as an efficient means of gathering good information, in any case.

hey i dont have any evidence of that, i just think that weak people could talk under torture, never said that i approved torture.

[GPDP]

hey i dont have any evidence of that, i just think that weak people could talk under torture, never said that i approved torture.

That's good, but I'm here to make the case against torture on grounds of it being an inefficient method of gathering information, unless you involve a very sizable population.

Weak people can talk, but there's no way to ensure the information they give will be good. It's not like in the movies, where the good guys have a terrorist they are 100% sure has the information needed, who will consequently not give the necessary information unless he is tortured. Such a situation does not present itself in real life. Thus, the only way you're sure to get good information through torture is by applying it to many people, so you can build a patchwork out of the many tiny bits of good information that may come through torturing an extended population. This is what the CIA did in Vietnam through the Phoenix program, which resulted in the US breaking the Viet Cong's back, but at the expense of tens of thousands of Vietnamese lives.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Torturing, even if it does at some point give valid information, would take far to long even in a "ticking time bomb" situation to produce said information.

Either way, it is barbarous, unhelpful and should be determined as an unsuitable practice for the radical left.

[Abc]

In general I believe in nonviolence, and hence I am of course against torture as a matter of principle. However, plenty of people who disagree with nonviolence also oppose torture. This, to me, does not make much sense. There is no such thing as a "humane" killing of another person.
torture is not ment to kill its ment to inflict pain after which the victim if he has not died of his wounds is usally killed, however some devices were made not to kill the victim for example the iron maiden had holes in the front so spikes could be inserted into non vital areas.
Shooting someone in the head in war while fighting for freedom while regretable is far more humane then the Catherine wheel whos sole purpose was to make the victims death as long and painful as possible. however like i said before ALL torture is wrong, sick and useless

[GPDP]

Oh, looky here, we got ourselves a fascist!

Enjoy your ban, asswipe.

[Q]

Torture is an ineffective means of collecting information.

Better to 'disappear' liberal lefties and Jews like Pinochet did in the past or Ahmadinejad has done recently. :cool:
Why do you even bother to register? You must have a sad life.

[GPDP]

I think it's cute how he went through all the trouble to make a sig, build a profile, and choose an avatar, only to be banned on the first post.

[RedAnarchist]

At least when we go over to thier opposing views subforum, we're polite, mature and civilised. When they come here, they barely even make any sense, just start rambling on about their silly little conspiracy theories.

[GPDP]

At least when we go over to thier opposing views subforum, we're polite, mature and civilised. When they come here, they barely even make any sense, just start rambling on about their silly little conspiracy theories.

Too true.

But this thread isn't about us patting ourselves on the back over the banned corpse of an idiot fash. May we get back to the topic?

[RedAnarchist]

I voted Torture is not only reprehensible, but it is also inefficient for information gathering purposes. It doesn't work, and most people suffering torture will just make anything up, or confess to anything.

[Luís Henrique]

I voted Torture is not only reprehensible, but it is also inefficient for information gathering purposes. It doesn't work, and most people suffering torture will just make anything up, or confess to anything.

I voted the same way, but I don't think "torture doesn't work". It doesn't work to gather information, but it isn't used for that end. It is used to break down and demoralise people, which may or may not bring up information as a bonus. In that, it can be very efficient.

There is an American fantasy about the terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere, and you have to find the bomb before it explodes, in 24 hours or some other short term. This is silly; torture won't make the guy tell it before it explodes. It is a long term process, intended to last for months, not for hours.

There is a book by Celso Lungaretti, Náufrago da Utopia, in which he describes and analyses quite at lenght the process of torture to which he was subjected. Unhappily it hasn't been translated into English that I know, but it definitely is a must read if you want to understand how torture is used.

And don't take it for granted that you can tell a torturer anything. They will make it clear that they don't want bullshit, by asking you things they already know, and beating the shit out of you if you lie, up to the point you will piss yourself merely at the thought of lying to them.

Luís Henrique