Your honest position on the use of 'torture' techniques....
Poll: Your honest position on the use of 'torture' techniques....
Total Members Polled: 314
Discussion
What do you think should be acceptable level of 'torture' type techniques should be allowable in these times against our known enemies? Can you live with the fact that people wont answer questions honestly without some threat, duress, torture, etc? Do you think that anything that saves innocent lives should be pursued? Do you think that those that press for information that saves innocent lives should be free from prosecution?
I personally dont think that suspect should be subject to anything other than light duress (questioning, sleep deprivation, mild pshycological duress etc) unless specific information pointing to imminent and real danger is known about a specific suspect. For example, when we capture someone we know is a terrorist leader, and we know they were activly involved in an imminent attack against non military targets, I'd be agreeable that ANY necessary steps should be taken, even if currently illegal. My concience would be clear.
I personally dont think that suspect should be subject to anything other than light duress (questioning, sleep deprivation, mild pshycological duress etc) unless specific information pointing to imminent and real danger is known about a specific suspect. For example, when we capture someone we know is a terrorist leader, and we know they were activly involved in an imminent attack against non military targets, I'd be agreeable that ANY necessary steps should be taken, even if currently illegal. My concience would be clear.
Edited by Corsair7 on Tuesday 9th November 13:23
I'm divided.
I believe sometimes you need to be agressive to get across the point that you are serious.
But with regards to it's use in general...
Hasn't there been several reports by various respectable sources that state Torture is next to useless as a form of intel gathering, since the infomation extracted is extremely unreliable.
People say what you want to hear....and not necessarily what they know.
I guess in general, I am against torture.
However; I was playing Fallout: New Vegas last night.....and without giving too much away, let's just say I relished playing the role of the interrogator
I believe sometimes you need to be agressive to get across the point that you are serious.
But with regards to it's use in general...
Hasn't there been several reports by various respectable sources that state Torture is next to useless as a form of intel gathering, since the infomation extracted is extremely unreliable.
People say what you want to hear....and not necessarily what they know.
I guess in general, I am against torture.
However; I was playing Fallout: New Vegas last night.....and without giving too much away, let's just say I relished playing the role of the interrogator
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Tuesday 9th November 13:37
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Tuesday 9th November 13:40
Corsair7 said:
For example, when we capture someone we know is a terrorist leader, and we know they were actively involved in an imminent attack against non military targets, I'd be agreeable that ANY necessary steps should be taken, even if currently illegal. My conscience would be clear.
Who says said person is a "Terrorist Leader"? Just because some suit in Washington designated him as a target, while he was going from work to home on his blackberry? What proof is there an imminent and real danger? Because an informant said so? Yes, because people don't lie to get money.
"actively involved" - what line do you draw in that definition? Technically, every c**t in Washington and the USA govt are actively involved, since they armed the Taliban. And also the guy around the corner who sold them a loaf of bread.
Fittster said:
As long as you are happy for the technique to be used on our troops if captured I don't see a problem with it.
our troops get murdered and dragged through the streets.A bit of water boarding or pics taken with a woman pointing at your tackle would probably be prefereable to most.
Hugo a Gogo said:
No, intelligence agencies spend lots of money on it just for fun.I find it hard to believe the CIA and so on would continue to do it if they didnt get some results, waste of time, manpower and money and bad PR.
If interrogation is carried out under strict rules, medical supervision and independant verification I have no problem with it as long as it doesnt go too far, anything that causes permament harm is unacceptable in my opinion.
Mr Dave said:
No, intelligence agencies spend lots of money on it just for fun.
I find it hard to believe the CIA and so on would continue to do it if they didnt get some results, waste of time, manpower and money and bad PR.
... because the CIA has such a fantastic track record of success?I find it hard to believe the CIA and so on would continue to do it if they didnt get some results, waste of time, manpower and money and bad PR.
Depends on whether or not you feel that society's responsibility to an individual outweighs its responsibility to itself. Which makes it easier to accept if it is citizens of another country who are being tortured. Hence Americans have fewer qualms about torturing Afghanis than they would about torturing Alaskans.
Fittster said:
As long as you are happy for the technique to be used on our troops if captured I don't see a problem with it.
Preeee-cisely. One of the reasons I like living in the "civilised world" is that, in general, we are better than places like Iran. We have the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and protection from the agents of the state. So from an ethical standpoint, it's really not on, in my book.From a pragmatic standpoint I am also firmly resolved against. As Nice Guy Eddie put it, "You beat on this asshole long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago Fire. That don't necessarily make it f
kin' so!". The victim will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. As such, the information so gathered is highly unreliable, at best.Pesty said:
A bit of water boarding or pics taken with a woman pointing at your tackle would probably be prefereable to most.
You might want to read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings Haditha KillingsAnd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_incident
And probably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_pa... looks rather interesting too
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff