Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Ok, I will try to respond.
I agree with Will that torture should not be used for vengance. I am saying that torture should not be used if both sides can avoid doing so, like nuclear or chemical weapons. We choose not to use them only so long as our enemies do not use them against us. We are not 'stooping,' but rather simply being pragmatic.
|
That's why I tried to hit on the fact that torture doesn't really work right off the bat. It would be pragmatic if torture worked, but it doesn't so it ceases to be an information gathering tactic and becomes an intimidation tactic. We really don't need intimidation tactics when we have, for example, millions upon millions of displaced Iraqis that are scared shitless of both their own people and the coalition forces. I'd say we've already got them intimidated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
When I said "long term" I was not referring to the length of a torture session but rather the timeline over which information is going to be gathered.
|
My mistake. So, to clarify, you're referring to a 15 minute cession being short term and a 12 hour cession being long term.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
During WW2 the Germans (and us as well) had the most luck with interrogators who used nonviolent approaches. However, it is absolutely possible to coerce people under the right circumstances. Additionally, the fear of torture as an option is a useful tool. When we capture someone, they are almost always absolutely terrified, and out of fear will tell us most of what we ask, particularly if we phrase the question right. After some time goes by and they realize that nothing is going to happen to them if they don't cooperate, they stop talking.
|
I would have to say that fear of torture and torture are two very different animals. One uses the threat of harm, the other uses the carrot of the harm ending. These each have incredibly different effects on an individual. While I find the threat of harm very distasteful, it is necessary in war. Torture, on the other hand
is the harm, but it's not the "I'm going to kill you before you kill me" type of harm, it's the "I'm going to assert my dominance over you" type of harm, even if one professes noble intentions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
No, I don't see much of a distinction between killing and torture. The latter is more distasteful than the former, but the end result is no worse.
|
Having been dead myself, I can attest to it not necessarily being painful at all. The end result really is a matter of perspective. From my perspective, death is like turning off a light. One is there one moment and simply not the next. For a religious person, it's a bit different, but I have to imagine that the end results are vastly varied. Eternal paradise vs. torture? Nothingness vs. torture? Aren't these no-brainers?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
We don't have institutions where "hundreds" of POW's and "Innocent Civilians" are tortured long term. I am reasonably familiar with our actual interrogation techniques, and none of them involve torture, withholding food, extreme discomfort, etc. If it happens it is way outside the norm. Abu Ghraib was an embarrasment rather than an official policy.
|
And Gitmo? Confirmed reports of 2 years of detention with regular torture from British citizens? Canadaians? Not even our enemies, but in fact people released as innocent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Even to get a prisioner sent to the Bagram Detention facility, the quantity of evidence collected against them is overwhelming, and is reviewed several times before they are accepted into the detention facility. They are then periodically reviewed by another panel to determine whether they are still worth keeping. The bar is very high just to get them in an internment camp in Afghanistan. Only the worst of those will go to GITMO, etc. and believe me when I say that the evidence has to be overwhelming.
|
If there was evidence, there would be trials. There are no trials, therefore I can only conclude the evidence is inadmissible, circumstantial, or fictional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
So your argument against waterboarding is that it is scary? Again, if waterboarding still takes place (and I am pretty sure that it doesn't, even for high value guys) I am only able to cry crocodile tears for them.
|
Scary wasn't an adequate description. After the third time I was gagging and even vomited. When I say scary, I'm comparing it to the time I was shot or the time I was hit by a car (or the time one of my girlfriends in hs said she was pregnant). Torture is an adequate description for waterboarding. As for the crocodile tears? You have to be aware that many people in Gitmo have and even are totally innocent. Don't they at least deserve your pity?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
These are just my thoughts, and bear in mind that I am not someone who has first hand experience (outside of training) with this stuff, either giving or receiving, and I am not claiming to be an expert.
|
I'm not an expert either, of course.