Torture
Comments
-
Just a quick note on 'fanatics' being irrational.....
It's quite easy to argue that they are in fact perfectly rational, in a behavioural sense. In that, they believe that what they're doing will lead to an eternity in paradise, so why should they be scared of dying in a suicide bombing?
If you 'know' (by 'know', I mean believe, but when you've got their level of belief it may as well be a proven fact) that doing something will lead to your god being eternally grateful and rewarding you with paradise, that will get an 'evil invader' out of your 'homeland' and will lead to your family/community/fellow believers being free, safe and happy, then wouldn't you do it, especially as there's no fear of dying.
When that same person is being tortured then they may well believe that confessing will mean that they don't get to go to 'paradise', so there's a pretty big incentive to lie. Maybe it's a trap, you tell the enemy where your guys are, when in actual fact they're hiding somewhere else to ambush them.
But on the other hand they're still human, pain still hurts, and everyone has a limit. At present I'd crack straight away, an 'enemy' wouldn't have to do anything for me to tell them what they wanted to know. But if I believed I'd be doomed to an eternity of torture in the afetrlife, then the option of putting up with it on a temporary basis becomes more appealing.0 -
bails87 wrote:Just a quick note on 'fanatics' being irrational.....
It's quite easy to argue that they are in fact perfectly rational, in a behavioural sense. In that, they believe that what they're doing will lead to an eternity in paradise, so why should they be scared of dying in a suicide bombing?
If you 'know' (by 'know', I mean believe, but when you've got their level of belief it may as well be a proven fact) that doing something will lead to your god being eternally grateful and rewarding you with paradise, that will get an 'evil invader' out of your 'homeland' and will lead to your family/community/fellow believers being free, safe and happy, then wouldn't you do it, especially as there's no fear of dying.
When that same person is being tortured then they may well believe that confessing will mean that they don't get to go to 'paradise', so there's a pretty big incentive to lie. Maybe it's a trap, you tell the enemy where your guys are, when in actual fact they're hiding somewhere else to ambush them.
But on the other hand they're still human, pain still hurts, and everyone has a limit. At present I'd crack straight away, an 'enemy' wouldn't have to do anything for me to tell them what they wanted to know. But if I believed I'd be doomed to an eternity of torture in the afetrlife, then the option of putting up with it on a temporary basis becomes more appealing.
jesus, stuff getting captured with you.
0 -
dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)
FFS, first you think I'm a mercenary, now you "remember" a fact about the UN in Angola.
OK.
Where were the british Army contingent based ?
what was our ORBAT ?
Where was the RFA ship Sir Galahad harboured ?
Who were the main 2 other forces out there under the UN mandate ?
See if you can "remember" any of that without googling.......maybe you were too busy cycle touring at the time to "remember" correctly.
Bit touchy aren't you mate? As it happens my father is an exploration geologist and did lot of work in Angola in the 90's. He has some very hairy stories to tell. Amongst them though was the fact that the situation was so bad that even the heavily armed UN forces didn't dare venture outside of their compound and they became the butt of a joke as a result.
We're not mates.
I'm not touchy, just putting you straight about my units role in Angola. I "did lot of work" as you succinctly put it out there too, but it wasn't geology I'm afraid.
You still haven't answered the questions yet, just swerved them, nice. 8)
I have answered the question - I explained what I knew about the UN in Angola and how I got that information. It is all rather off topic.0 -
markwalker wrote:Interesting views today, as i see it there is some concensus
1 Torture is a very unpalatable activitiy
2 Nobody wants their family to die
3 real life isnt black and white
Torture has always happenend and probably always will its unpleasent and unwelcome. Im glad i dont have to do it but im glad that we dont ignore any routes to securing my familys security.
That is one way of summing it up. I would sum up the consensus as I see it as follows:
1 It doesn't work
2 It robs us of our humanity
3 It removes any justification for claiming we are morally superior to our enemies.
4 It makes a mockery of the principles on which our society is created.0 -
clanton wrote:markwalker wrote:Interesting views today, as i see it there is some concensus
1 Torture is a very unpalatable activitiy
2 Nobody wants their family to die
3 real life isnt black and white
Torture has always happenend and probably always will its unpleasent and unwelcome. Im glad i dont have to do it but im glad that we dont ignore any routes to securing my familys security.
That is one way of summing it up. I would sum up the consensus as I see it as follows:
1 It doesn't work
2 It robs us of our humanity
3 It removes any justification for claiming we are morally superior to our enemies.
4 It makes a mockery of the principles on which our society is created.
Let me help you....
1. It does work, dennisn has candidly let us know this.
2. Touture vs humanity is a matter of perspective and personal judgement, some are ok with it, some oppose it, like you and I.
3. I don't claim to be morally superior, prevention of more horrible death or critical intelligence is more inportant, if you want to feel superior, feel away.
4. Our society was vastly built on slavery and enforced colonisation, lots of tortuous stuff in there. Neck and ankle chains, starvation, hobbling, branding, hard labour, beatings and lynchings.
Hope this helps.
0 -
This thread has covered quite a lot of varied ground.
Personally, I can say I'm very lucky to have never had to take part in any type of war and I would not dare to sit from the comfort of my home and be judgemental on those unfortunate enough to have been to war.
I can say though I would imagine if I was at war I'd want any weapon that could help ensure my survival even if it was banned by the GC. If a flame thrower was the best way to destroy an enemy position, lets have one. War is a horrible, horrible scenario and some theatres have been worse than others and it debases people.
I could HONESTLY say if for instance I'd been in the Normandy landings and I'd witnessed friends and commrades beeng killed/maimed all day and then when their situation became dire the gunners then wanted to surrender; I could not say I would spare their lives and in all probability kill them in cold blood.
Not saying that's right, I'm being honest, I don't know how I would react, could be I would spare them 'cos I just may well have had enough of the slaughter. I DON'T KNOW.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:This thread has covered quite a lot of varied ground.
Personally, I can say I'm very lucky to have never had to take part in any type of war and I would not dare to sit from the comfort of my home and be judgemental on those unfortunate enough to have been to war.
I can say though I would imagine if I was at war I'd want any weapon that could help ensure my survival even if it was banned by the GC. If a flame thrower was the best way to destroy an enemy position, lets have one. War is a horrible, horrible scenario and some theatres have been worse than others and it debases people.
I could HONESTLY say if for instance I'd been in the Normandy landings and I'd witnessed friends and commrades beeng killed/maimed all day and then when their situation became dire the gunners then wanted to surrender; I could not say I would spare their lives and in all probability kill them in cold blood.
Not saying that's right, I'm being honest, I don't know how I would react, could be I would spare them 'cos I just may well have had enough of the slaughter. I DON'T KNOW.
I'd kill them. I'd kill them in the first place, first chance I got. Being completely honest there, phew. Sorry if that offends.0 -
No offence, perfectly understandable.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?0 -
clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
I don't think anyone is trying to justify war, torture. Someone asked does torture work???? Sadly in some cases, and I have no idea of the percentage, YES.0 -
dennisn wrote:clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
I don't think anyone is trying to justify war, torture. Someone asked does torture work???? Sadly in some cases, and I have no idea of the percentage, YES.
The thread has expanded a bit but the OP's question was, roughly, at what point do the rights of the majority outweigh the right of the individual re torture.0 -
clanton I agree with your comment0
-
clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
So by your logic, how can anyone have justification ?
At least the "combatants" can have an understanding of combat situations, where your view is pure conjecture, Hollywood and selective media.
I can learn as much about the current situation as the next man, as can you. Only thing is I have experienced it, been on the ground and took part in operational duties. I have a better understanding. Like Teagar has quoted before, you can be naturally smart, but Knowledge is learned.0 -
clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
I don't think anyone is trying to justify war, torture. Someone asked does torture work???? Sadly in some cases, and I have no idea of the percentage, YES.
The thread has expanded a bit but the OP's question was, roughly, at what point do the rights of the majority outweigh the right of the individual re torture.
I woulds speculate that that question will get you a different answer from just about everyone.0 -
dmclite wrote:Porgy wrote:It's true that the British and US police (and all police I suspect) have been practicing "mild" forms of torture for decades and It's why we have so many innocent people in prison. a friend of mine brought charges against the police for torture back in the 90s.
I think the main argument aginst torture is that it doesn't work. Many within the intellgence agencies in the US oppose its use because they have developed much more effective methods for obtaining intelligence (which happen to be humane) that were being compromised by the Bush administration's condoned methods.
BTW - I have never believed in the "rithless and fanatical" steretype of terrorists - my remarks earlier were toungue in cheek - a mild sending up of others who believe such media driven rubbish.
But the kernel of truth in that comment is that "terrorists" are pretty driven people - usually willing to die for their cause, and unlikely to crack under use of violence. However most "innocents" would sell their own grandmother out to stop the pain.
You are right in what you say, although torture in some forms works, I believe.
I also believe that the most ruthless and fanatical would never be caught as they use lesser ranks from their organisations for the ops themselves, there would also be a lot of cut-outs and need to know fail-safes. The Organ-grinder and monkey analogy is apt here. So, would it be worth torturing a caught bomber, for example with the highly likleyood that he knows no-one else in his cell, could not identify anyone higher in the organisation and has only a limited knowledge of detail, probably not.
Have you ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein. It goes into some detail on how to set up an organisation made up of cells in the way that you describe. It's a terrorists handbook imo - better not let the authorities know.
0 -
dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
I can learn as much about the current situation as the next man, as can you. Only thing is I have experienced it, been on the ground and took part in operational duties. I have a better understanding. Like Teagar has quoted before, you can be naturally smart, but Knowledge is learned.
I agree. It's like having someone tell you what it's like to ride a bike if you never have.
Or what downhill skiing is like and you've never rode a lift up. If I try something new or go someplace new it's never like I imagined it would be. Actually attending musical theatre was much better than I imagined. Teagar and dmclite are right in that things need to be experienced to have a fuller understanding of what's involved.0 -
Porgy wrote:dmclite wrote:Porgy wrote:It's true that the British and US police (and all police I suspect) have been practicing "mild" forms of torture for decades and It's why we have so many innocent people in prison. a friend of mine brought charges against the police for torture back in the 90s.
I think the main argument aginst torture is that it doesn't work. Many within the intellgence agencies in the US oppose its use because they have developed much more effective methods for obtaining intelligence (which happen to be humane) that were being compromised by the Bush administration's condoned methods.
BTW - I have never believed in the "rithless and fanatical" steretype of terrorists - my remarks earlier were toungue in cheek - a mild sending up of others who believe such media driven rubbish.
But the kernel of truth in that comment is that "terrorists" are pretty driven people - usually willing to die for their cause, and unlikely to crack under use of violence. However most "innocents" would sell their own grandmother out to stop the pain.
You are right in what you say, although torture in some forms works, I believe.
I also believe that the most ruthless and fanatical would never be caught as they use lesser ranks from their organisations for the ops themselves, there would also be a lot of cut-outs and need to know fail-safes. The Organ-grinder and monkey analogy is apt here. So, would it be worth torturing a caught bomber, for example with the highly likleyood that he knows no-one else in his cell, could not identify anyone higher in the organisation and has only a limited knowledge of detail, probably not.
Have you ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein. It goes into some detail on how to set up an organisation made up of cells in the way that you describe. It's a terrorists handbook imo - better not let the authorities know.
I won't tell them, if you don't.
BTW, did you know that suicide bombers place tacks, nails, washers and stuff as shrapnel into the plastic explosive as shrapnel and that the shrapnel has been soaked in excrement until it is rusty. So not only is it explosive, it has shrapnel and is full of disease. The reason for the excrement is because children and the old are more supsceptible to infection after trauma and will induce more outcry. One of the odd factors that perplexes suicide bomber organisers is that heads of the bombers tend to stay intact and so are easily identifiable, this is why they are taught to smile when walking to a target, so in any photos the expression will be one of the martyr enjoying paradise, encouraging more volunteers to come forward for more missions.0 -
For the record, I didn't say you needed to experience things to really understand them, (though that's largely true). I do think in some instances, being too close to the issue prevents a wider perspective on issues which are sometimes necessary
All I meant in that statement was some guy who said something like "we're not all smart because we didn't all get properly educated", and I felt that there were plenty of smart people who hadn't necessarily been educated, and similarly plenty of not-smart people who had.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Porgy wrote:teagar wrote:For the record, I didn't say you needed to experience things to really understand them, (though that's largely true). .
That's quantum science and astronomy up poo creek without a paddle then
Hah, yes.
I meant more with regard to issues where experience is relevant.
You're right - my history degree might have been a bit tricky otherwise.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:Porgy wrote:teagar wrote:For the record, I didn't say you needed to experience things to really understand them, (though that's largely true). .
That's quantum science and astronomy up poo creek without a paddle then
Hah, yes.
I meant more with regard to issues where experience is relevant.
You're right - my history degree might have been a bit tricky otherwise.
+1.0 -
Personally, I think that in a true "ticking time bomb" scenario (i.e. high chance of very large casualties, your suspect knows the information and this would save the lives), when you have exhausted alternative approaches, you could morally justify torture.
However my understanding is that
a) these situations have almost never arisen (and I don't regard the battlefield intelligence scenario that dennis describes/makes up - I'm not clear from what he has now said - as qualifying, the alternatives have not been exhasuted)
b) generally interrogators feel that psychological approaches are more effective in gaining accurate information.
I can't remember the name of the famous British counter-espionage interrogator in WW2 but he turned lots of enemy agents and absolutely banned the use of torture , mainly from a practical point of view - it didn't get results you could trust.
All that said, I agree that using torture would actually damages our society and think it should remain illegal. If a true ticking time bomb scenario arose, it is quite likely that someone would feel duty bound to break that law. We could expect the courst to be lenient in such a case.
J0 -
you might expect leininancy but youd be screwed if you got cherie blair or any of her liberal bleeding hearts on the bench.0
-
I think Cherie Blair QC needs a few pints, a ruby murray and a knee trembler. Bring her back down to earth. I volunteer Teagar to fulfil this as the post-coital chat would be pleasant and right on, to say the least.0
-
dmclite wrote:I think Cherie Blair QC needs a few pints, a ruby murray and a knee trembler. Bring her back down to earth. I volunteer Teagar to fulfil this as the post-coital chat would be pleasant and right on, to say the least.
If any experience would be dehumanising enough to make you think torture was okay....... 0 -
dmclite wrote:I think Cherie Blair QC needs a few pints, a ruby murray and a knee trembler. Bring her back down to earth. I volunteer Teagar to fulfil this as the post-coital chat would be pleasant and right on, to say the least.
I thought she was his Mum. :shock:"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:War is terrible. Good people do terrible things in extreme circumstances. I'm not so naive as not to believe that. I can understand that if not condone it - and I too am very pleased not to have ever been in that situation.
This discussion though extends to situations where the battelefield is thousands of miles away and some of the combatants have been out of that "theatre" for years and could not possibly have any knowledge of the current situation. How does anyone justify that?
So by your logic, how can anyone have justification ?
At least the "combatants" can have an understanding of combat situations, where your view is pure conjecture, Hollywood and selective media.
I can learn as much about the current situation as the next man, as can you. Only thing is I have experienced it, been on the ground and took part in operational duties. I have a better understanding. Like Teagar has quoted before, you can be naturally smart, but Knowledge is learned.
By "my logic" no-one can have justification. If you mean by selective media that I read things otgher than the Daily Mail and the Sun then yup - guilty as charged. As for "Hollywood" - it is the pro torture people who keep using this mythical time bomb scenario to justify extreme means - not me.
This discussion is about the use of torture. The "experience" that leads to better understanding would have to be of torture - either recieved or administered. Do you have such experience? Dennisn says he has direct experience of torture so he may well have
"better understanding" though I hardly think having direct experience is necessary to have a deep understand that it is a horrific and repellent thing.0 -
bails87 wrote:dmclite wrote:I think Cherie Blair QC needs a few pints, a ruby murray and a knee trembler. Bring her back down to earth. I volunteer Teagar to fulfil this as the post-coital chat would be pleasant and right on, to say the least.
If any experience would be dehumanising enough to make you think torture was okay....... 0
