How do conservatives view torture?
 

Okay, so you've done a sweep and you have in your possession ten people whom you suspect to be involved in terrorist activities. You're not an idiot, so you know that completely innocent people may have been caught up in your sweep. After you've tortured all of the people caught in your sweep, how do you know which ones are actually terrorists and which ones only told you what you wanted to hear because you tortured them?

External corroboration. Since you set no limits on that possibility (such as time or resources), it is the perfect answer. I have an infinite amount of time to externally corroborate, and infinite resources to do so. Therefore, my success is guaranteed.

Then again, I'm not a conservative, and this another hostile baiting thread that will continue to ensure this forum's knack for alienating anyone who comes into contact with it.

Congratulations.

I'm just asking a question. If it is hostile and baiting, i'm sure it will be mentioned, but probably only by people who are avoiding answering my question in the way that i want and expect them to.

But if you like, you can pretend that i used the word "you" instead of torture.

For my part, i most likely wouldn't torture anybody so i wouldn't have to worry about this scenario.

I am inclined to agree with Johnny; this thread is asking for trouble, however valid your question may be.

The short answer to the OP: You won't be able to tell the terrorists from those who give in to end the torture because torture is not a reliable means of information extraction. Ask any psycologist, any POW, any torturer; they will all tell you the same thing.

Since you already know the answer that you want, why even troll?

Johnny already called it bait. IMO - He is correct.

Is this what you are looking for:

Guilt by association. Call it geographic profiling. They were at the scene, therefore they are all guilty or have something of value to provide. Gather the intelligence gained and based on its supportive data make a decision what to do. Seek more data, act on data gained, combine with outside data or torture the ones that actually provided some substance and see if they know any more.

I was going to answer until I saw this.

Maybe it's best just to treat this thread like what it is: analogous to a different, yet also vastly oversimplified thread with a loaded question for an OP.

Dude, it was Sunday, I had more important things to do than answer silly questions on the interweb, and now its Monday morning and I have patients to tend to so I will allow my colleague, Cardinal Fang, answer for me.

http://www.alfred-epple.de/fang.jpg

Thank you Ustwo.

Aggressive interrogation methods are often misunderstood. The classic example would be something like the Spanish Inquisition, where....

http://ng.netgate.net/~mette/fandom/...anishOrig3.jpg Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Ummm yes. Well in the Spanish Inquisition, torture......

http://ng.netgate.net/~mette/fandom/...anishOrig3.jpg NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Cardinal Fang: No please don't. Well in something like the anishpay quisitioninyey, torture achieved confessions due to the unpleasent fact that people just wanted the torture to stop and would confess to almost any sin, even if the end was death in order to end the torture. A more modern version could be the torture done by the Soviets in order to get people to confess in show trials. This is of course far different than the use of directed torture in order to extract specific pieces of information.

Quite bluntly this was a silly question as the interrogation would not be used to get people to confess they were terrorists, thats just silly, but to find out dates, targets, contacts, and other verifiable pieces of information. You are assuming it would be used on everyone caught. If you nab a guy with a one way ticket, a vest full of explosives, and a picture of Osama in his pocket, odds are you are not dealing with an innocent man. Likewise you are assuming that someone arrested due to association with said terrorists and questioned is going to get the electrodes on his genitals until he says something 'we want to hear' which would have been just peachy if we wanted to put on a show trial, but is worthless to us and we are not stupid enough to waste our time doing so.

I would follow up on all the leads generated. At first equal weight would be given to each lead until additional information started supporting some leads over others.

If I did a sweep I would have evidence supporting the sweep, I would have some connection between the 10 people and the enemy. I would never do a random sweep.

The level of torture would depend on the level and potential timing of the threat. For example if I had information that terrorist were going to attempt to kill thousnads of people within 24 hours and that information was credible, I may have to go beyond the legal limits to get the information needed to prevent the attack information.

You have got to be kidding me.