I'm actually confused on the torture issue.
On one hand, I admit there have been times when actionable intelligence was received via torture
But my concern is with weighing that against the negatives: the effect on the torturer, the innocent torturees (is that a fucking word?"), and the what happens to society when these people are discharged back into it.
"Honest men should not make war their sole profession"--Machiavelli
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>confused
>on ethics/morality
feeble mind
>effect on the torturer
These guys sign up, and train extensively to do this. They know what they're getting into. People aren't picked at random to do this.
So then what's the solution, fampai?
Actionable intelligence has never come from torture. Torture is to punish or to create Manchurians, not to find reliable information.
human rights are a myth
Go back to Africa.
I don't necessarily buy into that. I think years of actually carrying out torture would have a psychological effect. This goes back to John Locke nigga
>thinks mudshits are human
go put your mouth on a cow's ass like your ancestors nigger
i don't understand how people say torture doesn't work. i would absolutely convert to islam if you were pulling my fingernails off
>I admit there have been times when actionable intelligence was received via torture
...and those times were?
>le racism meme
> my research is based on a fictional character from television.
Say what?
Not if it's a psychopath that does the torturing.
The idea that the issue lies with whether or not it's ethical to torture criminals/terrorists is a farce.
The issue is that a vast majority of people that get tortured are innocent because they do it without due process (obviously). One of the shitskin countries, I forgot who, delivered "terrorists" to the US and it turned out they were basically all random civilians. Hell there was even a German who got killed through torture when he was in the US for some holidays or some shit.
torture is not effective for extracting info, and is only something amerifucks would love doing because youre sadist fucks that excuse anything with self righteousness
(You)
Niggah, your a weak ass liberal. Definitely from leddit, not /leftypol/
If torture literally never worked, then there would be no point in trying it.
Besides, you don't even have to prove torture doesn't work to argue against it
Christ, you faggot
The only people against torture are those in ignorance that the existential terror of the universe is far greater than anything any mortal could inflict upon you and that life sentences are far greater in that regard anyway.
Your picture is obvious bait, but let me ask a question in order to establish a baseline:
Are you aware that Abu was the place where the lowest scum were sent?
(BTW, this picture was taken on a Thursday night)
Now, compare humilation to dropping them feet first into a wood chipper if they lost the soccer game, Uday.
>. i would absolutely convert to islam if you were pulling my fingernails off
You would do absolutely anything, truthful or not, to make the torture stop. So if I torture you into "converting to Islam" and come back an hour later and start torturing you some more, you'll just as easily "convert to Christianity" or insist you're a traitor or quack like a fucking duck if that's what I demand.
>John Locke
>TV character
I think you may need to walk that statement back
1) Can you prove a significant amount are psychopaths?
2) If they really are, should they just be released back into society?
>If torture literally never worked, then there would be no point in trying it.
Bans on scary-looking guns. QED, GTFO bitch ass.
IF they are spending time on torturing you in a western country like the US you must have fucked up somehow.
The threat of torture is more useful than actual torture which is why it should be legal.
Okay, your edgy, I get it. Whats your point? Torture every muslim indiscriminately? I mean, I guess...
>quack like a duck if its what I command
mmmmmm, your turning me on
pls rspnd
post saved for future psy ops on whites after trump defeat
I see your point
What does that mean for the inevitable innocents? How does that have a long term affect on Americans?
that's fine for now, but as the US empire collapses captured americans (and it will happen as the era of US empire holdings accelerates) will be subjected to humiliating public torture
at that point you will wish you never supported torture
your thinking is obsolete in present era
Assault weapons bans do have an impact on the supply of those arms. QED is argued by most financial experts (not economists) to be helpful. Its just that the gains a dispersed and the losses are concentrated
>Can you prove a significant amount are psychopaths?
Obviously I can't but if you use your brain it doesn't take a genius to figure out that psychopaths would be attracted to that line of work, and probably excel in it.
>If they really are, should they just be released back into society?
What else are you going to do? Kill them? Keep them in a cage like a dog?
The only argument against torture is "muh feelz." Torture is not about gathering intelligence, it's about creating fear in your enemies. If we could torture mudslimes, ISIS would be gone within a week.
How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys, in history? We can't judge every single culture on the nuances and larger context of their actions, so where do we draw the black and white lines?
The bad guys are the ones that commit atrocities. The bad guys torture. If we want to be the world police, the international beacon of morality, the United States cannot torture people.
>By our mercy, we will grant even the foulest a quick death. Not because we pity them, but because it is intolerable that good men should spend a lifetime dispensing pain.
The people find the job. The job does not find them.
Psychopaths don't actually exist it is an outdated term.
The people you are talking about have physical differences in their brains that enable a remorseless conscious. They will naturally gravitate to positions that suit them.
That's what I mean. I use the term psychopaths because it's how the average person understands them.
it's a slippery slope, too much power for the government, encourages abuses of citizens power. That's just historical fact, let alone the fact its been highly ineffective and did untold damage to the people who did the torturing. Look into it. Its a terrible idea.
Information gained from torture is very unlikely to even be true.
It turns out people will tell you whatever you want to hear when you are paddling their balls through the bottom a chair.
typical american ignorance. Mind numbing stupidity.
>psychopaths don't actually exist
Explain this.
He's being nitpicky.
The Prince was satire. Please don't quote it unironically.
it incentivises western hatred, so in essence it has the opposite effect
The term just isn't used anymore.
Since the 1950's~. Before then it was 'moral insanity'. Before that it was 'conqueror'(lol).
Anyway the term psychopath has been replaced with like 2-10 overlapping 'personality disorders'.
Over lap the correct ones and you get a 'psychopath'.
Over lap the correct ones and you get a 'CEO'
Over lap the correct ones and you get a 'serial killer'
over lap the correct ones and you get a suicide victim. ect ect.
It is a very complicated spectrum that i do not understand. I am simply parroting my mental health support network.
(You)
What you say is true, but the general public still understands these people as "psychopaths". So for the sake of clarity and discussion it's easier to just use the term psychopath.
>at that point you will wish you never supported torture
Nah, it would happen regardless. They don't care if you don't torture them or not.
Is the OP a real example of torture? It's more like torture lite
precisely that's w3hy it is ineffective in getting intelligence
there's the joke
Three agents - one from the CIA, another from the FBI, and the last from the KGB - are tasked with finding a rabbit in the woods. All three venture into the forest, and return after a day.
The CIA agent returns empty-handed, and declares, "After a thorough investigation, I have concluded that the rabbit does not exist."
Also empty-handed, the FBI agent reports, "The target resisted, so I gunned it down."
However, for some reason or another, the KGB agent appears with a handcuffed and visibly injured bear. The bear says, "I am a rabbit. My mother and father were rabbits."
You may wind up scaring innocent people for life, let alone you damage the US's standing in the world.
I believe psychopath essentially just means someone with antisocial personality disorder.
>scarring
"haha, we stacked you guys on top of each other naked, I bet you feel gay now!"
come on. Where's the electric nipple clamps? Where's the waterboarding? Jesus, they're even wearing gloves.
It's even more complex than that, but you're essentially correct.
You can have ASPD and still be utterly cognizant of your morality and empathy.
The whole thing is fucked. I have over lapping ASPD and APD and ADHD and PPD
Freedum is not free
Id imagine most torturers are pretty clinical about it. They would compartamentalize it. Like a doc doing gory medical procedure.
>Like a doc doing gory medical procedure.
With a fast beating heart and a raging boner.
Actionable intelligence is the worst possible reason.
Morally, there's nothing wrong with torture when applied to your enemies. In war-time, no quarter is to be given for any reason. You catch someone hostile to your nation, you do whatever the fuck you want to them, you'll hear no judgement from me. But for fuck's sake, stop pretending like it gets useful information when they'll tell you whatever bullshit they think you want to hear just to make the pain stop. Anything they tell you has to be considered hearsay.
That's the problem. Even when people know nothing, they quickly learn that saying so just loses them more fingernails. Give me a pair of pliers and a man bolted to a chair, and I'll have him swearing up and down that he's the duchess of azerbaijan. You get the truth buried in a mountain of false positives, and in many ways that's worse than having no information at all.
>implying morals or anything matter with torture
Torture doesn't work cuz they will say literally anything to make it stop.
FUCKING EPICCC MAN XDDDDDDD!!!!!!1111!!!!!!1!11!!!!!!!!
Abu Ghraib wasn't holding just people convicted of crimes.
>reducing moral arguments to le ebin feels meme
wew lad
It's a method of psychological humiliation. It's a serious shame for observant Muslim males to do things like that.
Sounds like a wonderful world to live in
For long term torture, you cant just rely on physical pain. You basically turn the receiver of torture into a blithering idiot through psychological means; sleep deprivation, demeaning/humiliating tasks, whatever else you can imagine
this is completely wrong though, you torture people over a long period of time, you vet their answers and if they are wrong or lying then you continue with the torture, eventually they will tell you the truth , that or they have nothing to tell you and you move on.
your facebook-tier understand of psychology is lame as fuck
If torture didn't work they wouldn't do it you fucking liberal faggot.
Mission: go to the forest, find and catch a rabbit.
CIA 4 hours later: "We interrogated every our source, every bush and stone. After careful investigation we draw a conclusion that rabbit doesn’t exist at all."
FBI 24 hours later: "Rabbit has escaped. But it couldn’t make off too far."
KGB 20 minutes later: Got a bear, beat him within an inch of his life and the bear says: "I am a rabbit. My mother and father were rabbits."
>everything is done for a reason
You're a special level of stupid.
the greatest men of all time typically embody this sort of self righteousness
Ideally, it's one of those things where we don't want to outright ban it - there could be a situation calling for a quick-and-dirty intel grab rather than the more thorough, careful approach of working with the detainee. But at the same time, we don't want to use it much, or even at all. The threat is enough, and it's both more moral and more effective to gather intel slowly and gently.
But that requires very intelligent, dispassionate, well-trained teams of people with vast discretion to act and with equally intelligent, dispassionate oversight. Those sorts of folks are in short supply and high demand elsewhere. We need to write our rules for the least capable people we hire, both the barely-functioning bureaucrats and the mouth-breathing soldiers who barely passed Basic, not the smartest or even the average ones.
So ban it and stick to the slow approach. You can catch the errors that the idiots make before they become important.
yeah they just torture people for the fuck of it!
no reason at all, they just want to cause.... uhhhh.. 'CAUSE
I don't see a problem with torturing terrorists, but any soldier from a real country shouldn't be tortured.
Some ISIS scumbag though? Gouge his eyes out, I don't give a shit.
i don't understand how people can even consider banning torture
our ancestors must be laughing so hard right now holy fuck
Here's a redpill for ya: torture isn't used by governments to extract actionable intel, it's used to force people into giving false conventions so the torturers can pretend they're doing a good job and keep getting funding and get people to "admit" to whatever the authority of the days agenda is. It's all a scam and torture always has been all the way back to medieval times where they forced people to admit to impossible things like witchcraft.
That's why the CIA's "best" torture techniques (sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions) are also things that make you go crazy after a while. They don't want you to admit the truth, losing your grip on reality and not being able to remember anything from lack of sleep is obviously the opposite state you want someone to be in to tell you facts, they just want your mind to be pliable enough to suggestion that you'll admit to whatever bullshit charges they put in front of you. Not that pain based techniques are any different, people will eventually say whatever you want to get you to leave them alone, it's just more cost effective to keep them awake for a week in a dark room too small to sit in.
You're much better off manipulating the person into thinking you can help each other out to get accurate info from them, everyone's heroes the Nazi's best interrogator actually just went for a nice walk with enemies and they told him everything he wanted to know in casual conversation without even realizing it en.wikipedia.org
I have a very hard time believing torture "doesn't work." Sure, maybe for advanced operatives trained to resist it, maybe it won't do much, but are you seriously telling me that if you haul in some Abu Hajar grunt and start chopping off his fingers, he won't tell you the location of his camp? I can see torture being ineffective if you go into it with your mind already made up, like if you're convinced some random, innocent civilian is a high-ranking terrorist--of course he'll eventually tell you he is just to get you to stop. But I really don't buy the fact that it's useless for extracting information. And even if it is--even IF, I still think the very THREAT of torture is effective in getting someone to talk, and you can't threaten people with something you're not able or allowed to follow through on.
I don't know, I just don't buy it.
>If fucking virgins didn't cure aids people wouldn't do it
People do things all the time because they think they work when they really don't.
Well no. They do it because they think it works. That doesn't mean it works though.
Shh no truth allowed.
>Now, compare humilation to dropping them feet first into a wood chipper if they lost the soccer game, Uday.
Who did that?
The problem isn't that they won't talk, its that they will say anything. If they don't know anything they will make up shit just to make it stop. If they know something they will also make up shit just to make it stop. Unless you are torturing a password or a safe combo from someone you wouldn't even know if it was true until much, much later if ever and those aren't the things that they are looking for.
Torture doesn't make people tell the truth, it makes them tell you what you want to hear.
Torture actually isn't effective whatsoever at gathering information.
When someone is tortured they're just willing to say anything to stop being tortured. Simple logic.
And saying "Oh if it's still being done it must work!!!" is so retarded because some things don't work at all and are still done. We've never gotten a reputable piece of information from CIA torture.
Not to mention that some torturees may be innocent, some may not know anything, and some may come out hating America because they were treated like dogshit.
A guy on Sam Harris' podcast said it has to do with high scores of 3 psychological traits. Boldness, Meanness, and disinhibition. The difference between boldness and disinhibition escapes me but thats what he said.
Also the "CEOs are psychopaths" thing is a myth. Obviously someone who is TOO compassionate will not find their happiness in business, but full blow psychopaths usually aren't capable of "keeping the mask from slipping" and most don't have superior intelligence. People need to remember that a lot of business is actually being able to identify with other people and come up with good solutions to their problems. Psychopaths wouldn't be able to do this; they aren't introspective enough generally to fault themselves for doing something wrong.
These would obviously come from physical aspects of the brain, but whats been reconsidered is whether it should in fact be grouped with other disorders as a "disorder". when a homicidal psychopath kills, when a manipulative one lies and ruins lives, it's not an error of the brain. They aren't misinterpreting reality. They take their actions deliberately with a satisfactory perception of what they are doing. This is different from a schizophrenic who kills someone because they believe an angel is telling them to.
I get a fast beating heart and raging boners during normal medical procedures.
>Torture actually isn't effective whatsoever at gathering information.
When someone is tortured they're just willing to say anything to stop being tortured. Simple logic.
That's just it. You're being too simple. Torture works all of the time, that's why its been used since the beginning of mankind
The problem lies in the fact that Al Qaeda was well trained to resist torture and interrogation, by....... a double agent. this guy
en.wikipedia.org
You won't hear about that on the news, because it's more embarrassing for the CIA than the entire Enhanced interrogation program
This is why when the rendition program started in 95, the CIA didn't care about what the operatives had to say in interrogations, they just let whomever else they gave them to interrogate them (often tortured probably), but they almost never accepted information passed on by these interrogations because they were coming from intelligence communities that let's just say are not the USA's closest partners.
The CIA was interested in the documents communications they had when they were intercepted (sometimes by CIA, mostly by local authorities). Then 9/11 happened, the intelligence community felt responsible, and branched out to collect more intel. Interrogating people, running black sites, etc.
>read pic related's book. take it with a grain of salt because it's vetted by CIA, but theres a lot of good stuff in there
>bin laden even had it in his abbattabad compound that got raided
10 feet.
>laughing
I think you meant crying
how is this supposed to be a contradiction?