Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Torture is useless. I couldn't care less about actual terrorists getting tortured, but it's worthless as a mean of getting information out of someone.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.

Why?

Human suffering is fundamentally a bad thing.

Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.

Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

Are you saying Native American cultures were wrong?

The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

It is imperative for those who deal in violence, whether they are military, police, or intelligence agencies to maintain discipline and stick to hard rules. Allowing for grey areas invites disaster. The good guys don't target civilians, they don't use torture, and they always do things the right way, even when it isn't easy.

I fear we have lost our way a bit on this and it shows. We have set a low bar. We don't ask for more out of our spys, cops, and soldiers anymore, we just ask them not be criminal. Most of them still hold themselves to a higher standard, but the citizens need to their part. We only pay attention when things go wrong.

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.

Physical torture doesn't work

The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.

SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.

SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.

What they want, why they want it, what they do or how they do it are all immaterial. It does nothing to change the nature of suffering.

If you're looking for a justification of "Human Suffering is bad" I have none for you. Some people believe in god, I believe that humans shouldn't suffer. What's good and what's bad is not some tangible physical law of the universe. I can't offer some proof or test. I can only say with absolute certainty that it is true.

 Frazzled wrote:
Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

Are you saying Native American cultures were wrong?

This is pretty close to the single most pathetic thing I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something. I really shouldn't even dignify this kind of baiting with a reply, but It bothers me too much to let it sit.

The acts you've listed are evil.
The aspects of those cultures that provided for the normalization of those acts were wrong.
The people who did those things were in the wrong when they did them.

However this is not the same as "Native American culture" being wrong, or the people committing those acts being inhuman. Humans and their cultures aren't that simple. People's beliefs and motivations are complex and derive from their personal experience and the context of their surroundings. Cultures grow out of the collective experiences of those people, and how they in turn react to the culture.

That some aspects of culture permit or even encourage evil, does not invalidate every aspect of that culture nor override whatever good may have come of them as whole. Similarly none of the good things, or achievements of those people or cultures excuse or negate those evil acts. Evil is also not incomprehensible. It's possible to understand the context of an act and the consider the perspective of those committing it without condoning it.

It's no different for us. The United States has tortured people. That is evil. It is inexcusably wrong. The United States has done other evil things in the past as well. That doesn't rip the flag off the moon, or make baseball bad, or ruin the internet. In the same fashion, our scientific achievements and our delicious BBQ do not excuse slaverly or mean we had the right commit genocide against the native peoples.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.

SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.

SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.

No-one said that. I'd tell you to grow the feth up, but you're way past that.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.

What they want, why they want it, what they do or how they do it are all immaterial. It does nothing to change the nature of suffering.

If you're looking for a justification of "Human Suffering is bad" I have none for you. Some people believe in god, I believe that humans shouldn't suffer. What's good and what's bad is not some tangible physical law of the universe. I can't offer some proof or test. I can only say with absolute certainty that it is true.

 Frazzled wrote:
Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

Are you saying Native American cultures were wrong?

This is pretty close to the single most pathetic thing I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something. I really shouldn't even dignify this kind of baiting with a reply, but It bothers me too much to let it sit.

The acts you've listed are evil.
The aspects of those cultures that provided for the normalization of those acts were wrong.
The people who did those things were in the wrong when they did them.

However this is not the same as "Native American culture" being wrong, or the people committing those acts being inhuman. Humans and their cultures aren't that simple. People's beliefs and motivations are complex and derive from their personal experience and the context of their surroundings. Cultures grow out of the collective experiences of those people, and how they in turn react to the culture.

Why is it evil? It wasn't even for them. Why are you imposing your values on functioning cultures? And it is saying their cultures were wrong because it was a fundamental part of their culture.

That some aspects of culture permit or even encourage evil, does not invalidate every aspect of that culture nor override whatever good may have come of it as whole. Similarly none of the good things, or achievements of those people or cultures excuse or negate those evil acts. Evil is also not incomprehensible. It's possible to understand the context of an act and the consider the perspective of those committing it without condoning it.

Now you're just trying to protect your PC credentials.

It's no different for us. The United States has tortured people. That is evil. It is inexcusably wrong. The United States has done other evil things in the past as well. That doesn't rip the flag off the moon, or make baseball bad, or ruin the internet.

To several on this thread it apparently does.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.

Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

You realize all those cultures are either dead, or effectively dead, right? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for torture.

How is this useful if it gets no real results and also gets a decent share of innocents as well? You don't have to like bad men to see what is problematic in torturing people and how it degrades those who do it. Harming others just to harm them isn't a business we should be in.

In case anyone's wondering, while I don't give a flip about terrorists, I'm just arguing becuase those rending their clothing and gnashing their teeth out at America Evilz is just humorous to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Spoiler:

Would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.

Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

You realize all those cultures are either dead, or effectively dead, right? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for torture.

My first inclination is to tell you to feth off, but then on reflection:

Hey, I'm from a totally insignificant country. I've long ago become used to the fact that other forces in the world could wipe us out if they chose. So ISIS have a dirty bomb. Loads of other people have nukes, and we have none. The situation is not that much different.

I guess it must be terrifying for the US though. Being such a weak country and all.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.

Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners

You realize all those cultures are either dead, or effectively dead, right? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for torture.

How is this useful if it gets no real results and also gets a decent share of innocents as well? You don't have to like bad men to see what is problematic in torturing people and how it degrades those who do it. Harming others just to harm them isn't a business we should be in.

How do you know no real results?

 Frazzled wrote:
They're dead because they were wiped out by germs and steel, not because of goodness and hope.

Excluding Rome, they were severely weakened by germs but finished off by other people. Doesn't change that using dead ancient cultures to justify modern attitudes doesn't really work in any meaningful capacity. It is also not about goodness and hope either, you just keep changing what the standards are.

 Frazzled wrote:
In case anyone's wondering, while I don't give a flip about terrorists, I'm just arguing becuase those rending their clothing and gnashing their teeth out at America Evilz is just humorous to me.

I expect more out of my country than what we've been doing the last 15 years. We've been doing things half assed and it shows. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we have been.

I don't have any problem with pointing out the hypocrisy of our allies in going after the US, while enjoying our military protection. I'd love to see us leave NATO and quit subsidizing our economic rivals. This and that are seperate things though.

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Spoiler:

Would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.

Very good. I respect that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.

Why?

1. Because from a tactical military perspective, it is fething stupid. Torturing prisoners makes it more difficult to win battles because your enemies are less likely to surrender.

2. Because from a strategic military perspective, it is fething stupid. It is a propaganda victory for your enemy, making it easier for them to recruit support to take you down. It's the reason why it was so easy to get support to go kick ISIS's teeth in - because nobody likes the bastard who murders children and sells women as sex slaves.

3. Because from an intelligence-gathering perspective, it is fething stupid. It is an unscientific method of gathering intelligence that is incapable of distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff, and produces a hell of a lot of chaff.

4. Because from a moral perspective, it is simply evil. Violence may morally be used as a proportional response to an enemy combatant - the equivalent of a police officer shooting a gunman. But once they are no longer an enemy combatant - once they are a prisoner at your mercy - you cannot rely on this justification. And since you can't rely on tactical, strategic or intelligence-gathering effectiveness as a justification either, all you are left with is a bully who likes inflicting pain on people who can't fight back for its own sake.

Torture is not a tool favoured by tough men and criticised by sissy liberals. The laws of war were written by men who wage war, because committing war crimes is useless at best. Fething Napoleon, a man who conquered half of Europe had this to say about torture:

The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.

The people in favour of torture are the posers - the losers who pretend to be Navy SEALs or who think half-drowning some Afghan goat-herder they bought from some warlord makes them big men.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Spoiler:

Would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.

Very good. I respect that.

Does that opinion also support that the torturers and those who ordered it (Cheney & Rumsfeld included in that) should be tried for crimes against humanity?

Yes Frazz because I exactly said " I am ok with a dirty bomb". Come on man, you're better than these amateur moves.

While you'd love to place me in with "American the EVLIZ" group, I'm arguing solely on effectiveness. The report said flat out that torture didn't get us meaningful information. So even if I was ok with torture (which I am not) the bottom line is that the good/evil debate is irrelevant because torture didn't work. We'd still be hit by the dirty bomb.

 Da Boss wrote:
My first inclination is to tell you to feth off, but then on reflection:

Hey, I'm from a totally insignificant country. I've long ago become used to the fact that other forces in the world could wipe us out if they chose. So ISIS have a dirty bomb. Loads of other people have nukes, and we have none. The situation is not that much different.

I guess it must be terrifying for the US though. Being such a weak country and all.

Moldova just caught seven people trying to smuggle uranium...

Its less we are weak more that the Rooskies knew that if they nuked us, we'd nuke them. They weren't hoping they could do it so they could end up in paradise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They're dead because they were wiped out by germs and steel, not because of goodness and hope.

Excluding Rome, they were severely weakened by germs but finished off by other people. Doesn't change that using dead ancient cultures to justify modern attitudes doesn't really work in any meaningful capacity. It is also not about goodness and hope either, you just keep changing what the standards are.

Actually, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.

Why?

1. Because from a tactical military perspective, it is fething stupid. Torturing prisoners makes it more difficult to win battles because your enemies are less likely to surrender.

2. Because from a strategic military perspective, it is fething stupid. It is a propaganda victory for your enemy, making it easier for them to recruit support to take you down. It's the reason why it was so easy to get support to go kick ISIS's teeth in - because nobody likes the bastard who murders children and sells women as sex slaves.

3. Because from an intelligence-gathering perspective, it is fething stupid. It is an unscientific method of gathering intelligence that is incapable of distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff, and produces a hell of a lot of chaff.

4. Because from a moral perspective, it is simply evil. Violence may morally be used as a proportional response to an enemy combatant - the equivalent of a police officer shooting a gunman. But once they are no longer an enemy combatant - once they are a prisoner at your mercy - you cannot rely on this justification. And since you can't rely on tactical, strategic or intelligence-gathering effectiveness as a justification either, all you are left with is a bully who likes inflicting pain on people who can't fight back for its own sake.

Torture is not a tool favoured by tough men and criticised by sissy liberals. The laws of war were written by men who wage war, because committing war crimes is useless at best. Fething Napoleon, a man who conquered half of Europe had this to say about torture:

The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.

The people in favour of torture are the posers - the losers who pretend to be Navy SEALs or who think half-drowning some Afghan goat-herder they bought from some warlord makes them big men.

I was writing almost this exact post. Just with the qualifier "Putting aside that results aren't relevant" at the top.

Also. The report linked in the OP says so. Multiple times. Seriously just CTRL+F "no actionable" if it's too tough a read for you Frazzled.

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Spoiler:

Would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.

Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.

If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.

I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.

Very good. I respect that.

Does that opinion also support that the torturers and those who ordered it (Cheney & Rumsfeld included in that) should be tried for crimes against humanity?

I'm biased. I'm sure Cheney is actually the Penguin. Not convinced?

http://www.bat-mania.co.uk/main/villains/penguin.php

I'm not saying its Dick Cheney but...its Dick Cheney.