Torture is used time and time again in tv shows

>Torture is used time and time again in tv shows
>It always works

Why is this the fucking case when we know it is not fucking true? The current 24 with the black guy is still spreading this lie.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/US_Senate_Report_on_CIA_Detention_Interrogation_Program.pdf
fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Idk same shit with blackmailing

>implying it always works or that it never works

pure autism

>le torture doesnt work meme

it always works, as long as they actually know the information; just a question of time

in reality it means you get 10 guys, where they all tell you anything you want to escape torture. One of them has legit info. How the fuck do you actually act on this information?

“The fact is torture is for sadists and for thugs. It’s like getting groceries with a flame-thrower. It doesn’t work and it makes a mess.”

You torture several people and cross examine their answers.
This is basic calculus.

based michael

And they all give you wildly different answers. The fact is torturers just extract what they want to hear, not the actual truth, so it's a moot point anyway. Invariably intelligence achieved from torture never amounts to anything; it's always walk-ins or HUMINT that gets all the big scoops.

>Torture just gets you the fastest lie to make the pain stop.

Getting useful information is about creating a new reality for the interrogation subject with no hope of escape or freedom.
You control every aspect of their world how they eat, where they sleep even whether it's day or night.
When it's time to ask questions you want them disoriented, anxious, wondering who you are and what you can do to them.
You have to make them understand that their entire future their hopes, their dreams every breath they will ever take from then on it all depends on one thing: Talking.

You're describing torture right?

And how are you so knowledgeable about this?

Torture works, the fact you equate its effectiveness with its morality speaks of a very flawed sense of ethics.

>torture someone
>they tell you something
>turns out to be false
>they get more torture

in tv shows the torture depicted is usually in a fictional "ticking time bomb" sense where you know something is about to happen and you know the person is definitely involved which doesnt happen irl

I read that the cia has more luck when they show the muslim some respect, like literally making them tea and giving them a mat to pray on and shit. Most of the younger ones realize they were being retarded after a while and will flip on their terrorist bros

but trump said torture was ok lets ignore experts, scientists and people who have been tortured

You are confusing Deprivation to Torture, the difference is one is deliberate and one is subtle

This literally.

The fact is, people are confusing Torture with other interrogation methods, usually the ones who do Tortures are the untrained, specifically gang members or third world enforcers.

Most intelligence agencies and black books will always try other methods first, which actually works better than physical torture.

the problem is when it comes to 'torture' hollywood paints it a picture of blood, pain and metal instruments and basically generalizes the whole idea of extracting information in that torture is the only method.

I would also like to add that people would also use torture when the information they want is not a high priority, the bigger the intel is, the less they do to you physically

>Torture doesn't work, I would just tell them what they want to know, then they'll have to stop torturing me.

People in real life consider water boarding too harsh to use. It makes me think that torture in real life is nothing more than ticking people with a feather. As such, it wouldn't surprise me at all that it doesn't work in real life.

>Torture never works!

And yet people have been practicing it for millennia. I wonder who's right, and who's wrong: the smug and self-righteous modern liberal entirely unfamiliar with the subject, or every interrogator across every civilization for the past few thousand years?

Torture works really well for things like passwords
>the password is 'GOD'
>no it isn't
you must be able to verify the info for torture to work.

I'd say there's definitely certain situations where torture works. Even if it's a minority of cases.

Like for example you've detained a guy but you need the password to a file on his computer.
You can confirm that it's his computer so you know damn we'll he knows the password, and it's very easy to confirm whether or not he gave accurate info or not.
I realize torturing a guy for a password that you could just crack isn't very realistic, but it's just an example.

Torture does work. You'll get them to talk. The question is, how reliable is what they tell you.

lol you believe in God don't you

>where they all tell you anything you want to escape torture

This doesn't actually work in the real world where what they're saying can usually be corroborated fairly quickly or compared against other data that intelligence agencies have at their disposal.

We are talking about how torture does not work every single time in terms of intelligence extraction.

It worked in the past, yes, and it still works today, but not in the same vein as you think, people still torture soldiers not because they want information but rather to inflict as much pain as possible and to prolong their suffering.

Also since WW2 people have invented measures not to be taken alive and to prevent torture, so torture as the only source of interrogation has gone down along the years.

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread would agree that Torture does work, but its not a reliable way to extract information and there are other methods which are a lot better

The CIA has more luck by temporarily handing them over to foreign governments that torture the fuck out of them. That's why they continue to do it.

someone's never been suffocated

if you think water boarding isn't horrible for the person experiencing it because there's no rack or thumb screws involved you're mistaken

That's an incredibly specific situation which requires you to know things you usually wouldn't. The setup is way too simple to be comparable to real situations related to war or terrorism.

You guys should check out Hanns Scharff, by the way. He was a german interrogator during WW2. Guy was sly as fuck and way more successful than any torturer. He even remained a friend of some of the POWs he'd interrogated after the war.

to add; Most military and intelligence folks are trained to resist torture and to an extent know that they are expendable and is to be treated as such.

so torture would work best on the uninitiated

on tv, it boils down to lazy, plot-driven storytelling. in real life, torture has varying degrees of success. it does work against your every day person who has never taken any type of SERE training or counter intel training. with soldiers, spies, etc, it's a different story.

also, anyone who cites liberals or conservatives in this debate should be disregarded.

have someone waterboard you and see if you still think that you idiot

How would it not work? The "torture doesn't work" meme was propagated because it gives false confessions or gives people a reason to attack some place they already wanted to attack.

If the torturer actually wants true info like the people in TV shows, torture works just fine.

people often like to say that torture is ineffective at gathering information. it is usually people who don't know shit about history or warfare: it's a nice thought but it just isn't true. there are plenty of examples (particularly in WW2) where it worked just fine.

you have to do it right though. if you have something in mind that you want the victim to say (i.e. for political reasons) then they'll say it just to make the pain stop. likewise for open-ended questions where it is difficult to verify whether they are telling the truth -- they'll say whatever they think you want to hear.

however, if you have questions that are easy to verify the answer to, then torture works just fine. an example would be if you knew there was a bomb somewhere in the city, but you don't know exactly where. you can't search the entire city because it's too big, but you can search a given location quickly. if you torture the terrorist, you can check whatever locations he tells you, and eventually he'll give you the right one.

(guess which paradigm was used by the geniuses in the bush administration though ..)

basically you use torture to solve NP problems -- problems that are otherwise difficult to find a correct answer, but where it is easy to verify the correctness of an answer.

You're simply regurgitating talking points from popular culture.

First, people still torture other people for information. Remember waterboarding? Ring any bells? Second, the fact that people have taken measures to prevent their capture suggests a certain degree of efficacy to the entire process. Sure, you might argue that they simply want to avoid pain, but surely someone willing to die for their cause would be willing to suffer to spread false information. Third, you have a distorted perception of soldiers. Soldiers aren't superheroes capable of withstanding torture while sharing witty quips with their captors.

Torture works, or no one would use it.

>if you torture the terrorist, you can check whatever locations he tells you, and eventually he'll give you the right one.

This is plain wrong, if its a terrorist then by god you can always make sure that the man would keep his mouth shut,

read the last line of this

Spotted the virgin who's never been tortured.

It's literal propaganda.

what?

You know what else has been practiced for thousands of years? Slavery, serfdom, class division, murder, rape, discrimination.

ITT: you should all give a read at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

Even just the first 10 or so pages here is the PDF file.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/US_Senate_Report_on_CIA_Detention_Interrogation_Program.pdf

bottom line, torture did not work.

>People often argue that people under torture will say anything that their interrogators want to hear, and are thus useless as sources of information. There is something to that, but to a large degree that depends on what goals the interrogators actually have. For example, in the Iraq war, American higher-ups often didn’t want information – they wanted their fantasies confirmed. They "knew" that anti-American guerrillas couldn’t be motivated by nationalism or Islam – they had to be paid Baathist agents. Or there had to a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Whatever. Most told something close to the truth, but that wasn’t good enough, and so, torture. In much the same way, Stalin tortured until he got what he wanted – false confessions for show trials, rather than actual information about Trotskyist conspiracies (that didn’t even exist). Most people broke – I remember that a Chekist said, admiringly, that Lev Landau held out a long time – three broken ribs before giving in. The Japs at Midway wanted real info, not ammunition for their fantasies.

>If an interrogator wants valid information, he can see if the stories of several different prisoners agree. He can see if their story checks with other sources of information. etc. It’s like any other kind of intelligence.

>At least some of the arguments about the effectiveness of torture are obviously false, not even meant to make sense. For example, I have seen people argue that torture is pointless because the same information is always available by other means. Of course, since the products of various kinds of intelligence often overlap, you could use that argument to claim that any flavor of intelligence [ cryptanalysis, sigint, satellite recon, etc) is useless. But multiple leads build confidence. Sometimes, you can get information via torture available in no other way. If you are smart, and if information is what you really want.

>yfw you get captured by terrorists and they make you watch DC movies

>At the Battle of Midway, two American fliers, whose planes had been shot down near the Japanese carriers, were pulled out of the water and threatened with death unless they revealed the position of the American carriers. They did so, and were then promptly executed. Later, at Guadalcanal, the Japanese captured an American soldier who told them about a planned offensive – with that knowledge the Japanese withdrew from the area about to be attacked. I don’t why he talked [the guy didn’t survive] – maybe a Japanese interrogator spent a long time building a bond of trust with that Marine. But probably not. For one thing, time was short. I see people saying that building such a bond is in the long run more effective, but of course in war, time is often short.

>You could consider the various agents that the Germans inserted into England: the British captured almost every one of them, and gave them the choice of cooperation (which included active participation in British deception schemes) or execution. Most cooperated.

>The Germans tortured members of the various underground groups in Europe – and some of them never broke. But some did. You may have heard of Jean Moulin not breaking under torture, even unto death: but the Gestapo caught him because Jean Multon did break. To avoid being tortured, Multon agreed to work for the Gestapo. Over the next few days he led his captors to more than 100 members of the Resistance in Marseilles. He then gave away more in Lyons. Some of those he betrayed themselves broke under torture by the Gestapo. Things snowballed, and the whole network was torn to pieces.

Some reason why voilent militarized policing is shown as fuckawesome and not at all ethically taxing

>someone kidnaps you
>ties you to chair
>plops your laptop in front of you
>puts your hand in a vice
>says "password"
what do

I can almost guarantee you will give him the password. If the interrogator can check the information and they know you have it you will blurt it out to stop the pain.

You obviously have no idea what water boarding does.

It didn't work because the people doing it were incompetent, trying to please their superiors by "confirming" theories of a vast Baathist conspiracy, or both. When you don't have the luxury of feeding your own delusions, all sorts of "impossible" things suddenly start to work.

user 1:
>"Here is an actual reliable paper on how -thing- works/doesn't work and hypothesis on why."

user 2:
>"-thing- works/doesn't work because -random "argument" pulled from his ass-. Your documentation is meaningless and I know better."

Every time like clockwork.

>believing the CIA

yes goy, torture is ineffective and we don't use it

user 1:

>here's concrete examples of where [thing] worked and a common sense reason why

user 2:

>[thing] doesn't work because an agency of notorious liars and incompetents said so, which coincidentally helps their PR

That's because the CIA was usually came up with whatever the person their interrogating knows about.

user, tell me, why would the CIA, the one agency that uses torture lie to say that it does not work?

It's as if Meryll Lynch was found out to have laundered money and you say that it was actually they who said it.

How does that make any sense?
Is not like the report was made by the CIA

>The Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program[1] is a report compiled by the bipartisan United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

I cannot fathom such blindness.

Because it was a PR move to deflect controversy away from the Bush administration you colossal idiot

Don't ask questions that lead to stupid answers then. If you ask them if Osama Bin Laden did 9/11 at some point they will cave in and just say yes he did it. If you ask them who set them up? Who paid? What did he wear? Give us a recount of your day? etc.
Then they are more apt to tell the truth and once a few out of the 10 start saying that he wore a funny had, had a huge nose and sat on a sack of gold while paying with shekels, then you'll know that it must be true since they gave you the details.

except real torture works

waterboarding doesn't work
start with some real hostel shit, no warm ups

These are the exact same clowns who somehow managed to convince themselves that Iraq had a secret active nuclear programme and that there was a vast network of Baathist loyalists leading the Iraq insurgency. Why would you believe them about anything?

Basically if your whole stated reason for being in the conflict is predicated on a cascade of lies, then of course torture won't help you.

So a report that shows a CIA misconduct that happened under his administration should deflect controversy from his administration?

Who would have thought random teenagers on a Croatian Genocide Forum know more about intelligence extraction than actual government specialists.

Really makes you think.

Seems that a lot of men who have worked in interrogation say that torture has never provided good information. At least from the various discussions on the topic I've seen. So unless you have some secret way of making it work at getting the information needed you should probably go to your government and tell them this.

Why don't they ever threaten to chop off the person's penis/balls? If someone threatened me with that, I'd squeal pretty quickly.

Nah it's more that the effective methods evaded classification.

My definition's simply more encompassing.

Pain and such is shit, isolation, gaslighting, sleep deprivation etc etc are kind of good.

That being said, the main aim of EIT is to spread terror. Against a civilized enemy that's likely to show mercy it shouldn't ever be used, but when you're up against religious or political fanatics you need it in order to hammer home the point that whoever messes with the lives f your people will get their lives messed with.

Not really no.
Either people will just lie or they'll just say nothing.
t. HUMINT

There was only 1 post with actual data and facts out of 67.
What a waste of time.

Cause the CIA likes to fuck with people

How does blackmailing not work?

>You know what else has been practiced for thousands of years? Slavery, serfdom, class division, murder, rape, discrimination.

You're confusing efficacy with morality.

torture is waterboarding, shock therapy, and branding.

I'll expand on this and explain more in depth as to /why/ torture itself isn't effective.
When you're interrogating someone the objective is to form a bond with the person in which he sees you as the sole avenue of getting out of the situation that he's in. Whereas torture only leads them to escaping that pain. In order to escape said pain they'll tell you what they think you want to hear which even if they /are/ telling the truth, it'll be a truth told under duress that will be slanted towards what they think you want to hear. Which becomes a large problem later in the intelligence cycle when analysts are compiling data and the information essentially just becomes a positive feedback loop of you being told what you want to hear.

When you actually get the person to talk freely and not under a state of duress however they're more likely going to factually recall details and it won't be in a manner that slants it towards what you yourself want to hear. If you go back and look over time at the most effective interrogators its the ones that are friendly and non-menacing that get the best results.

>>
>I can almost guarantee you will give him the password.

No you cannot. And after doing so their willingness to cooperate will have plummeted.

>duress that will be slanted towards what they think you want to hear. Which becomes a large problem later in the intelligence cycle when analysts are compiling data and the information essentially just becomes a positive feedback loop of you being told what you want to hear.
Yeah nah, you're not HUMINT or at leastyou're not very good at your job.

I've worked as a 35M and now privately. Torture is a tool like anything else and if applied and used correctly it will yield great results.


The whole "theyll lie to avoid pain!" Lie about what? The idea is you have done your homework already on the detainee and you're aware key facts pertinent to your questions.
Are you not aware of pain based conditioning?

I don't ask questions I don't already know 50% or more of the answer to or at least can verify on the fly.

Once you create a situation in which the detainee is not sure what you know, you create an atmosphere of powerlessness within them.

If you can avoid torture and develop a positive relationship based on approval and safety, that;'s great however, it's the inherent threat of torture in the background that makes that relationship visceral and gives it teeth. I.e. "We can do this the easy way or hard way"

TLDR: Torture works when you couple it with prior knowledge and instant fact checking, so fuck off with your bullshit disinfo.

The top intelligence agencies in the world utilize pain and conditioning in order to glean information from detainees.

>implying you're not just roleplaying

Like fuck we use torture or the threat of torture in any capacity.
Unless you were one of the cuntbags over at Abu G that is.

Where were you stationed bud?

Bagram and Gitmo had limited use of waterboarding and sensory deprivation (UN calls it torture)

CIA has also contracted out this sort of work to host nations in the ME

Why roleplay? 35M isn't some glamorous job and any idiot can learn what I just wrote, it's all common knowledge

Are you not aware of KSM? The most notorious example of waterboarding producing results?

CHARLIE M.

Because SJWs.

Don't argue with these fucking civilians.

They live in a safezone bubble.

>torture doesn't always work

Read up on soviet russia. They could get literally anything they went with torture. You have the info? They'll get it out. You did the crime? They'll make you confess. You didn't do crime? You'll still be confessing your little bitch ass.

I've done most of my work on the strat side in Europe and Korea.

And KSM wasn't the total of all the intel that went into the raid, there was plenty of regular interrogations that lead towards the creation of that.

But like, since you're not roleplaying really quick find me the part in here that has anything to do with torture being effective.
>inb4 JAICC
fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf

>Every situation in real life is elaborate and complex

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, despite pretending otherwise

And nobody in their right mind thinks torture is useful in every case. It is, however, definitely useful in some cases. That being the case, whether torture is useful in a particular situation or not should be left up to the interrogator. It is afterall his job to determine what will work in each specific situation.

The only argument against using torture is that it is "morally wrong", and the whole "torture doesn't work and as such should never be used" is a shitty disingenuous argument.

>fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf
Did you seriously just provide an Army FM as evidence that torture doesn't work ? You are aware that torture is considered illegal right?
That it is in violation of several UN and NATO statues?

That's akin to showing me a High school handbook on how to make money and claiming that embezzling money from a company is a viable option because it's not listed in said book

Christ man.

KSM regardless provided information that turned out to be accurate and true via torture. This is not up for debate. Thus, any claims that torture is ineffective when applied correct is bullshit as we have centuries of evidence as well as current evidence to look upon.

Is not a viable option*

>Hanns Scharff
>Died October 9, 1992 (aged 84) Bear Valley Springs, Tehachapi, California
Every fucking time.

Torture is great if you want to extract false confessions.

>claims to be 35M
>claims to use the threat of torture
>haha dude FM's don't count!
Yeah, I'm sure your Warrant would have signed off on your shit.
I'm also pretty sure I pointed out that torture can get very specific confessions of truth, it's just that it is also slanted towards what you want to hear.

On the KSM topic I've worked with an interrogator that was at gitmo when they were putting all that together and it wasn't just his interrogation that provided all that information. There was plenty of interrogations that went solely within the bounds of proper law and worked just as well.

>Hang all these fucking Nazi war criminal scum!
>Sir, what a out Hanns? He said he will work with us
>Oh right, Hanns is cool. He literally didndu nuffin. Get him a nice cottage with round the clock security

In movies it works because the questions are few and simple.
But in the real world, its much harder to know what the captured guy actually knows and what he doesn't know.

So if you torture someone to confirm a theory or to try get the location of something, they will probably agree with it, or give you a location even if they don't know, just to make the pain stop as fast as possible. All they want to do is give you the answers you want to make it stop as fast as possible. Future torture doesn't isn't a viable threat when your'e already putting them through hell.

So you end up with a lot of information, some of it true, some of it false. While the subject is in worse and worse condition and keep blurting out answers to stop you.

>You didn't do crime? You'll still be confessing your little bitch ass

This is the exact problem though. They will literally tell you anything just to get a 5 minute break from the unimaginable pain. Even if they have no info on something, they will make something up, because "I don't know" is the least effective thing for them to say to stop the pain.

Well are there any television shows or movies that depict torture in this way?

>orture can get very specific confessions of truth, it's just that it is also slanted towards what you want to hear.


As soeone who served in the Army for almost a decade, yeah i know for a fact that FM are chockfull of bullshit and outdated, politically inspired thinking. Same as how Psychologists don't take the DSM as the 100% holy grail of knowledge.

Shit that happens in the field doesn't always translate to a DoD funded handbook that civvies are able to read.

That's actually not even my point, my point was that the FM is not going to endorse a method of interrogation , no matter how useful if it's illegal. Can you understand that?

KSM was torttured nonstop and finally once he roke he started actually being useful, Hence, the Bx conditioning which every interrogator and BS level psych student knows. Not sure why you don't.

I'm not saying torture is first and foremost the best policy or approach, I'm saying that it is useful and does work when used appropriately. Half the NEETs in this thread are just spouting platitudes they read on WApost or some trash tv show.

Not that I have seen/ remeber

Torture does work. The entire holocaust lie was fabricated by soviets, good goys in the US Army, and Jews simply by having tortured German soldiers admit to things they didn't do.

Well guns can be used to kill innocent people too so we should ban them, right?

Wrong, you don't know what you're talking about.

Threat of future torture is very real.

If I yank off one of your toenails and leave you alone in a room for an hour, the idea that I'm going to return and yank off more toenails is very real and a very big consideration for whether you will cooperate.

And my point is that Warrants literally live their entire life for the purposes of correctly managing bureaucracy and there isn't one out there that would ever sign off on an interrogation plan that used the threat of torture in it's plan.

Funny, how of all shows out there Arrow acknowledged that.
Saying that toture leads to a lot of fake stuff because of people wanting the pain to stop, etc.

What?

Sure, but what I'm trying to say is that they would still give you the answers you want to hear rather then what is true.
"I don't know" is not a viable anser in their heads as they are being tortured, or threaten with torture. So you get an answer, but you don't know if it was true or accurate the info was.

There are more effective methods to get more reliable consistent info with.