Please no memeing. Just give an honest answer with an honest reasoning

Please no memeing. Just give an honest answer with an honest reasoning.

>Do you condone torture in the name of securing your Nation's safety and interests?
>Why or why not?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_row_inmates_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, it gives lefties weapons to talk about.

Only if it's publicly disclosed. Like jail records and court information

it's a situational thing - depends on the severity of the threat.

I condone torture for any reason

this too. good point.

Yes, but only if it's done shamelessly.

It should be a deterrent to terrorist activity. "If we catch you, we will torture you. We do not give a fuck." None of this kowtowing, making excuses for it being done for interrogation purposes, or denying that it happens. We should do it openly, proudly, and loudly to America's enemies.

Not citizens though, even traitors. They get Constitutional protection.

Yes. Fuck everyone else, your lives are worth less than ours.

...

No. My ethical beliefs aside, I've talked with several Vietnam spooks and more recent cia agents (dc fag here) who tortured people and firmly believe it to be ineffective

So basically anyone who is not a US citizen is given the 17th degree and tortured as an example?

How would oversight work or if an accused captive is the citizen of a sovereign ally nation?

I'd condone torture for loitering 2bh

Nigger I condone splitting/fusing atoms and incinerating entire cities in a matter of moments for national security and you are worried about torture?

>(OP) is confirmed faggot

No, it's against international law, provides fodder for our enemies propaganda and has been proven to be ineffective at producing correct information.

Do you condone killing in defense of your country?

Any country with an armed military, that claims to be unwilling to torture captives, is just pandering to to the softer members of their population.

Not willing to torture, but willing to kill is illogical.

So yeah, we need to do whatever it takes to get the info we need. If you are that worried about the lasting psychological damage from torture, just kill them when you have what you need.

If a convicted terrorist is tortured, I couldn't care less. Just don't expect any reliable information. People will say anything you want to hear.

That's where it gets slippery, where's the line start and stop? Torturing suspects won't get reliable intel if they're innocent. They'll tell you they're Osama bin Laden if that's what you want to hear

Best to just wipe out all degenerate cultures and work on improving the once great white people. At least we know we're capable of greatness.

Of course, for three reasons.

#1 it is effective. It caught Osama ben Laden.
#2 it discourages our enemies from fucking with us by instilling fear in them. They know we're too weak as it is, so they think they can get away with anything.
#3 they fucking deserve it. Goat fucking muslim scum like Khalid Sheikh Moehammed deserve to be tortured just as a general fuck you.

Torture is a final punishment.

It is reckless, amateur and irresponsible to use it to extract information.

Torture has never yielded us good intel.

>falling for the meme

torture did not have any substantial role in finding Bin Laden

It's proven to be an unreliable method to obtain credible intelligence. I'd only support it's use on targets who are 100% guilty.

Yes, because Western culture is worth torturing some people who wants to see it destroyed.
I would approve the torture of a middle-eastern man who had his first beheading at the age of 10 to save the life of a Western man who had his first gold trophy in sports at the age of 10.
You just cannot compare these two cultures and say they are equal.

No. It's extremely unreliable such that it cannot be trusted to provide useful information in any scenario risky enough to require that info.

Plus, I don't want the government deciding whether it's right or wrong.

>their brutality is barbaric
>our brutality is 100% justified

They're fucked and torture would be used like a police interrogation tool but needs to be approved by a council of five military, police, intelligence, politician, and citizen

this

using torture as a means of data extraction is proven to be unreliable. If you drop the pretense of gathering intel, you're left with torture as a form of punishment. I'm not into that, as I'm not convinced of the capability of torture as a deterrent.

Yes.
What are you gonna do about it?
You enjoy your comforts because the West is the most brutal force out there.
Anyone who tries to take away your way of life is immediately snuffed out by the brutal force you condemn.
You can shitpost away because the brutal force protects your right to.
You can be an ungrateful twat all you like but when the jihadist knife is right around your neck, you fucking wished the middle-east was nuked years ago.

The point isn't to deter, it is to punish the individual.

If terrorism could be deterred, we would have figured out a way.

There's the surveillance/police state, but that only works on people with SS#s.

what do we gain by punishing someone? are dead people less dead? are the survivors somehow made more whole by watching their attacker tortured?

Just kill them, they're not US citizens and torture isn't an effective means of getting information so what's the point of wasting tax dollars on this silly shit?

Bullshit. Our brutality will keep us in trouble. Acting violently and forcefully to end a conflict as soon as possible will keep us out of trouble. It's not the same as being brutal.

Absolutely. In dire times every possible human right can and will be suspended.

There is no real reason. I just can't figure out what to do with jihadis otherwise.

They're undeserving of human rights.

>torture isn't an effective means of getting information
Why do libshits always parrot this Bulls hit? Torture is very effective if applied properly. Why else do you think it has been the go-to interrogation method for millennia? It fucking works.

>are dead people less dead
I think his thrust is death is a quick and definitive end. Many cultures accept death and would embrace it if it meant rewards beyond or at the least leaving their loved ones in a better position.

Vicious and blatant torture with death as a reward is far less appealing. It is one thing to say you will be welcome into paradise with 72 wives. It is quite another to say the Americans will capture you, flay off your skin, puncture your ear drums and put out your eyes, then take a dril and honeycomb your bones from the outer limbs in. For weeks on end while pumping you full of drugs that won't let you sleep or dull the pain and keep you alive past the point you care about anything other then dying.

As for the survivors. Revenge is a very powerful emotion. It is in our very blood to want to hurt those that hurt us. Revenge may ultimately solve nothing but it does feel damned good to get it.

"If your enemies talk about you, they win."

No, it serves no real purpose. You will get the 'answer' you keep demanding of the person you are torturing whether that is actually correct or not. The information you gain cannot be trusted at all and it simply makes people needlessly mad at you.

No, because "my nations safety" is really just people in power torturing other people to get what they want.

Rarely, if ever, is it in the best interests of the general population.


If it was actually some Jack Bauer shit, then ya, torture the guy who is objectively a villain/terrorist.

>It fucking works.
[citation needed]

So, we poison their minds with false hope.

Hope that they can get their revenge, whilst they, and their children, and their children's children fall into the same trap, until they just give up.

So just kill them. You waste thousands of manhours torturing them for 'muh feels' otherwise.

Its never worked. People have done it for millennia and people have gone on wild goose chases based on shit they tortured said for millennia.

So go ask Kim Jong Un for advice.

I don't think they have a terrorism problem.

Would the state media report it if they did? North Korea is so irrelevant that no one would give a shit to terrorize them.

I think it's more fear of winding up in a concentration camp.

Define torture so I can respond. Do you consider dosing someone with drugs torture?

>So, uh, I guess that's why they've been using it since the beginning of human history, huh? For fun?

>no
>the golden rule. Also a swift CERTAIN death from a righteous force is more than enough to make a point to one's enemies.

He's clearly talking about Osama ben Laden, Bin Laden's retarded cousin.

What do you do against an enemy that embraces death with a fervor that they willingly commit suicide just to inflict damage?

Yes, people are stupid and assume it works. It never has for the same reasons it doesn't now. Confirmation bias covers the massive number of failures for the one time it ever did anything useful.

For dissent purposes again confirmation bias says 'See they don't revolt because I keep torturing them!' which could be the gravestone of 90% of the world's dictators.

The Chinese believed that for thousands of years the Emperor held The Mandate of Heaven and prevented all disasters so long as he had it, is that true then? The Aztec and Maya had hundreds of years under a civilization that claimed the set would literally not rise each day if the proper sacrifice was not paid in blood, also true?

Who said anything about gathering information for every torture? A Murder and rapist of children deserve to be given a painless death? Nah, torture that motherfucker with a spiked club till he dies. A psychopath who murders for fun is deserving of life or a painless death sentence? Nah, torture that motherfucker by flaying him alive till he dies. Human trafficing? idk, I'm sure somebody could find something to do with that crime. Some people deserve an equal sentence of their crimes. But it has to be a very harsh crime.
Or we could just kill some people so tax money doesn't go to keeping them alive. capital punishment works too, but hang those people not waste money using expensive drugs.

No, it serves no purpose and severely harms international relations. If you are willing to torture people you have to be willing to have your people tortured.

Yes.

My enemies stop being people when they choose to be my enemies.

no. its unreliable and youre fucked if youre not even the terrorist. thats what the 8th amendment is for. same with the death penalty. just investigate for answers fucking retards

So wasting time for 'muh feels' bonus points for using extreme methods with inexact sentences. About 5% of people on death row are there under false accusation, so every 1 in 20 people you brutally torture and execute is completely innocent. Have fun with that.

yes... if thousands of lives are at stake because a terrorist won't tell you where they hid the bomb i would feel betrayed if the powers at be didn't torture the hell out of him.

that's just an example but, yes, i agree with torture if it'll save lives

Got some statistics for that? I doubt 5% are in death row under false accusation.

if we were in a world where it helped, I'd consider saying yes. this is not that world

as trump said: if our leaders had just gone to the beach, our country would be better off

the interventions in the middle east did not stop terrorism. they destabilized the area, killed hundreds of thousands, created ISIS, and led to the rapefugee crisis.

the muslims are too backward and too fractured to be considered an enemy worth going to war with. if we wouldn't have attacked the area, terror groups would not have had fodder for recruitment and fundraising. the problem would have withered away

MAGA

And then he tells you about 20 different wrong answers for your trouble.

>no because it doesn't fucking work and its been proven to not work

This, and only for shitskins, non-citizens, and people who're already getting life-sentence equivalents.

No, because we are a proposition state and not an interchangeable patch of turf. Our laws and conduct are our nation.

>a team of researchers has concluded that about 4.1 percent of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death are falsely convicted.

scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/

This is based primarily on past convictions not on current ones, but the point is still there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_row_inmates_in_the_United_States
Inexact, but for every 10 people killed on death row since 1973, 1 person was exonerated, either before execution or posthumously.

And current methods of finding convictions (forensics, surveillance, etc) are better than they were in the past. You find me a present study on deathrow inmate prosecutions and I'll side with you. deathrow/life isn't a very popular sentence nowadays.

>4.1% of criminals sentenced to death are innocent
>by the same metric 4.1% of criminals are sentenced to life imprisonment
>anti-capital punishment groups keep referencing the idea that "rotting away for the rest of your life is worse"

How is it worse to execute someone with a death penalty?

No cruel or unusual punishment.

When interrogating persons who have had extensive counter interrogation training, enhanced techniques may be necessary.

The U.S. attorney general can decide how far we legally are allowed to go.

We're not talking about life in prison vs a normal execution, we're talking about every person there being slowly tortured to death in the most painful ways imaginable.

>Do you condone torture in the name of securing your Nation's safety and interests?
Yes
>Why or why not?
I value myself and my countrymen more than I value foreign strangers thought to be a threat.

To some degree.
I didn't during the Bush administration and I don't during the Obama administration. And that's probably because it's done for dishonest causes, WMDs and bullshit that overthrew sovereign governments.

That being said I want the Islamic world to fear us. I want our names whispered in terror. I want us to be demons in their eyes, stories told to scare their children into obedience.

And as always morality is subjective so who gives a fuck.

Absolutely. It's just that it's not always effective. Only might work if you're pulling information from someone, but if you're trying to make them admit something, it won't work too well.

Fight fire with fire. They behead our people, we behead their's

Depends on who's the torturer and what the interests are.

Right wing death squads torturing information out of leftists? Sign me up.
It'd be stupid not to have a double standard in this.

I condone torture just for fun. If we catch a terrorist alive we should feed em alive to pigs, and mail the pigshit back to the families so it can be buried in accordance with Islamic customs.

Seriously underrated post

>That being said I want the Islamic world to fear us.
Why should we stoop to their level? Instead offer a fair deal and if they don't like it threaten all out retaliation. What do you think is going to scare them more? Some brown fuck being tortured at gitmo or their country being turned into a glowing crater? Even if the average jihadi doesn't care I assure you their politicians will.

Not against regular POW's.
But against captured spys, 'sleeper agents', suburban jihadists etc. yeah.

But there has been research to suggest that information gained through torture is very often inaccurate as the suspect cracks under the need to provide information and will often fabricate it to satisfy his torturer.

still worth a try once in a while

especially the drugs and psych ones

nice numbers

but I also say

Fight fire with fire where that's how it should be fought

He can't HANDLE the truth

how would you rather the US behave for the next ten years

No.
Because it ends up with people giving up junk information to stop torture.

A commen theme I am seeing is
>torture doesn't produce relieable intel
I can agree that may be the case. If I were having my testicles zapped by a car battery I would sell out my entire family and say I shot JFK.

However what if torture was broken down to a science and used in conjunction with traditional intelligence? Take 6 foot soldiers. Zap their balls. 2 of them say nearly the same thing. Reference this against known intel. Find a common factor that makes their confession reliable. Grab the next higher up target, Rinse and repeat.

Torture alone obviously cannot be trusted but torture with a strong intelligence network to bounce the replies off of. It could be a powerful combination.

no because who promotes torture for security nation are the same people who arm and financing terrorism. simply like that

This is my view. Use it as a deterrent.

Governments should not use torture, not because of >muh human rights but rather because torture is of questionable utility and has massive tangible downsides.

Consider:

*Torturing people with the aim of extracting useful and actionable information, as opposed to just trying to inflict as much pain as possible, is extremely difficult and practically a lost art in the modern era. Even the CIA, who are presumably the best in their field, literally had to hire outsiders to teach them about how to do it ("enhanced interrogation techniques"), for all the good it did them.

*If it becomes known to the world that you freely employ torture, your enemies/other hostile powers will have Grade-A propaganda to employ against you that will massively stiffen resistance against you. Look at America's collective response to the Bataan Death March as an example.

*Related to the above point, public knowledge that your government's police/military/intelligence services make free use of torture could turn off other, more useful intelligence assets--defectors and moles who are dissatisfied with their own countries and who view your country as a better alternative or even a force of good in the world. Many of the most valuable spies and double agents that America made use of during the Cold War were of this kind, for example.

All-in-all, torture should be shunned not because it is inhumane but simply because, in an era when we have spy satellites, wiretaps, comprehensive data collection, professionally trained intelligence and counterintelligence services, quasi-truth serums, and countless other resources to make use of, "getting medieval" on your enemies has shown itself to not be especially useful in real terms.

This actually is what it is used for. People here think just because the information is often inaccurate means it is useless. This is not true at all. All it means is that torture is ineffective in building up information networks from the ground up. However, if you have a puzzle-like information network from other sources, it can help you verify and fill in certain parts of it.

Your second and third points are probably the best arguments against torture there are.