2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you torture me, I'll tell you exactly what I think you want me to say. I even tell my own mama will plant the nuclear bomb in Amsterdam, as long I'm sure it's just that you want me to say.
What about the rational of the torturers: I torture this one guy because he gives me highly useful information about a terrorist cell planning to plant a nuclear bomb in Amsterdam...
If such a thing were to be thwarted by one torture would you still say it's wrong? Without the torture, a city gets decimated. So which path would you prefer?
I think I've heard your argument from other sources... Perhaps from Iraq during the Saddam times, from Germany during the Hitler times, from Cambodia during Pol Pot times, from Spain during the Franco times - and Guantànamo from Bush times.
So please, don't try to convince me that torture gives high quality information, and that it's civilized methods from democratic good countries. It's not.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm not condoning it, just taking devil's advocate and wondered what you thought about various ways it can be rationalized. Personally I think it abhorrent that people could stoop to such but would you think it ok if it was proven to stop an atomic attack?
If you torture me, I'll tell you exactly what I think you want me to say. I even tell my own mama will plant the nuclear bomb in Amsterdam, as long I'm sure it's just that you want me to say.
I think I've heard your argument from other sources... Perhaps from Iraq during the Saddam times, from Germany during the Hitler times, from Cambodia during Pol P ...[text shortened]... ty information, and that it's civilized methods from democratic good countries. It's not.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt DID work with al Sharif though. Thus, if it worked once, it is not completely useless.
If you torture me, I'll tell you exactly what I think you want me to say. I even tell my own mama will plant the nuclear bomb in Amsterdam, as long I'm sure it's just that you want me to say.
I think I've heard your argument from other sources... Perhaps from Iraq during the Saddam times, from Germany during the Hitler times, from Cambodia during Pol P ...[text shortened]... ty information, and that it's civilized methods from democratic good countries. It's not.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
The value of intelligence is in it's reliability, if most stuff from torture is unreliable (and you have no way in knowing any one piece of infos reliability in advance) then all evidence gained via torture must be suspect. You can find an exception to almost everything, Exceptions make bad law/policy, just because you can find the odd example where it worked doesn't diminish that vast swath where it didn't, nor does it make it justified. Unless you think ends do justify the means, but that is a whole other, and often held, debate.
Originally posted by sonhousePersonally, no I don't.
I'm not condoning it, just taking devil's advocate and wondered what you thought about various ways it can be rationalized. Personally I think it abhorrent that people could stoop to such but would you think it ok if it was proven to stop an atomic attack?
Sounds illogical, I'll admit but you are either barbaric or you're not.
Originally posted by sonhouseThis was the most interesting part of the article:
Here is an interesting piece of work showing democracies less likely to change torture policy because of separation of powers:
http://www.physorg.com/news135437486.html
An average of 78 percent of the governments in the world used torture against at least one person under their control in any given year during the last 25 years of the 20th century, according to Moore and Ryals. Those who used it in a given year faced a 93 percent chance of continuing the practice the next year.
So if governments say they are against torture, but commit torture, and fully 78 percent of the governments of the world commit torture, then how can torture be against international law? Maybe there's no such thing as "international law"?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAre the 78% named and shamed,or are we to beleive that includes all the G8 countries and the nations that make the full OECD nations etc?
This was the most interesting part of the article:
An average of 78 percent of the governments in the world used torture against at least one person under their control in any given year during the last 25 years of the 20th century, according to Moore and Ryals. Those who used it in a given year faced a 93 percent chance of continuing the pra ...[text shortened]... can torture be against international law? Maybe there's no such thing as "international law"?
Originally posted by kmax87I located the study but the formatting isn't agreeable with my computer. In case you want to give it a try, here's the URL:
Are the 78% named and shamed,or are we to beleive that includes all the G8 countries and the nations that make the full OECD nations etc?
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/7/8/2/pages267829/p267829-1.php
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou can get the document from here:
I located the study but the formatting isn't agreeable with my computer. In case you want to give it a try, here's the URL:
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/7/8/2/pages267829/p267829-1.php
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/7/8/2/p267829_index.html#get_document
Thething is that this is not just state-endorsed torture. It includes things, like prisoners being unlawfully tortured by police members during interrogations. This regardless whether such torture was actually illegal in that country.
Originally posted by kmax87I looked at the study, but there was no table or list with the 78% that comprise the governments that have used torture. Perhaps it is in the footnotes? In any event, 78% is nearly all the governments on the planet. A better and shorter list might be the 22% that have not used torture.
Are the 78% named and shamed,or are we to beleive that includes all the G8 countries and the nations that make the full OECD nations etc?
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI think it cites a 2004 paper, but somewhere else goes on to say this paper's numbers are based on Amnesty International reports about torture. I'm pretty sure these include countries that do not endorse torture in general.
I looked at the study, but there was no table or list with the 78% that comprise the governments that have used torture. Perhaps it is in the footnotes? In any event, 78% is nearly all the governments on the planet. A better and shorter list might be the 22% that have not used torture.
Then again, it's a very fine line to decide what consists endorsement of torture. Turning a blind eye or tolerating it can be seen as endorsement, even if it is illegal by the country's laws.
Edit - It's still a huge number that should make us think about its widespread use and confers and extra responsibility to governments. Publicly endorsing certain forms of torture can only legitimize some of these behaviours.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI think it's more likely almost all governments have used torture at least once, even countries that you would ordinarily think it would not happen there like Norway or Belgium or Switzerland. I don't think the word decency comes to mind in ANY government. They get in power and because they are in power, the main thing they want is to STAY in power, however they can do it. Democracies included. When people have power, they use it. End of argument. If you are in the way of that power, tough luck. Like innocent victims of police attacks on a genuine drug lord haven, oh, SO sorry that little girl got killed, but we had to get that nasty drug lord.
I looked at the study, but there was no table or list with the 78% that comprise the governments that have used torture. Perhaps it is in the footnotes? In any event, 78% is nearly all the governments on the planet. A better and shorter list might be the 22% that have not used torture.
And in the back room back at HQ, Sgt Remora, if you tell ANYONE about that guy we 'persuaded' to give us the address of that drug house, you won't be around the next day, GOT IT? We here at the CIA take this kind of thing seriously, we don't tolerate whistle blowers, EVER. If anyone asks, we never talked.